JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This Writ Petition is before us pursuant to the Reference Order dated 10.02.2016 of the learned Single Judge. The issue referred to us concerns the interpretation to be placed on Rule 56 (4) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'KER') in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'KSR') that are made applicable to teachers of aided schools through Rule 56 (1) of Chapter XIVA KER. The essential question is whether, notwithstanding the provisions of the KSR, which enable a teacher in a Government school to avail leave without allowance for a continuous period up to 20 years (subsequently amended to make it 5 years vide G.O.(P).No.152/2020/Fin. dated 05.11.2020), the teachers in private aided schools could be prevented from availing leave for more than 5 years without affecting their continuance in service. A learned single Judge differed with the view taken by another learned Single Judge in the decision reported in Deepa S v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2010 (4) KHC 820 ] and referred the matter for consideration by a Division Bench. 2. The brief facts in the present Writ petition may now be noticed: The petitioner who was an L.P.S.A in the A.M.L.P. School, Chengottur, Malappuram District availed leave without allowance for a period of 5 years to join his spouse abroad. The leave was sanctioned by Ext.P1 order dated 05.09.2005 for a period of 5 years subject to the specific condition that the leave period will not be counted for service benefits including pension. It would appear that, thereafter, on expiry of the initial 5 year period, the petitioner obtained sanction for extension of leave for a further period of 5 years from 15.11.2010 to 14.11.2015. Still thereafter, and immediately prior to the earlier leave period expiring, the petitioner by Ext.P3 communication dated 12.08.2015 sought for a further extension of 5 years to cover the period from 15.11.2015 to 14.11.2020. On this occasion, however, the Manager of the school refused to sanction leave by his proceedings (Ext.P7 dated 11.08.2015). The said decision of the Manager was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P8 letter dated 22.08.2015 of the Headmaster of the school. On this occasion, however, the Manager of the school refused to sanction leave by his proceedings (Ext.P7 dated 11.08.2015). The said decision of the Manager was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P8 letter dated 22.08.2015 of the Headmaster of the school. The petitioner therefore impugned Exts.P7 and P8 communications in this Writ Petition, wherein reliance is placed on the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, and in particular, Rule 58 of Chapter XIVA KER to contend that it was not open to the Manager of the school to refuse sanction of a leave claimed by a teacher, and that the statutory procedure envisages a mere forwarding of the request of the teacher to the Government after noting of objections, if any, by the Manager. Inasmuch as the said procedure was not followed by the Manager, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Manager as illegal for non-compliance with the statutory procedure, read with the relevant circulars issued by the Government from time to time. 3. Before us, it is the submission of Sri.Dinesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 56(1) of Chapter XIVA KER clearly state that, in the matter of casual leave and all other kinds of leave, the teachers of aided schools shall be governed by the Rules for teachers of Government schools in the Service Regulations for the time being in force. It is contended, therefore, that inasmuch as the teachers of Government schools are governed by the corresponding leave provisions under the KSR, there ought not to be a differential treatment meted out to teachers in aided private schools in the matter of sanction of leave. Referring to the specific provisions of Rules 56 (4) of Chapter XIVA KER, which mandates that a teacher shall cease to be in service after a continuous absence of 5 years, whether with or without leave, it is the submission of Sri.Dinesh, that the said provision ignores the amendments that were effected to the KSR subsequent to the introduction of Sub Rule 4 in Rule 56 of Chapter XIVA KER. It is in particular, pointed out that, at the time of insertion of Sub Rule 4 to Rule 56, the corresponding provisions in the KSR, governing the sanctioning of leave to teachers of Government Schools, also required that the teacher would cease to be in service after a continuous absence of 5 years whether with or without leave. The subsequent amendments to the KSR, that extended the period of permissible leave without forgoing the lien to the post did not entail consequential amendments to Rule 56(4) of Chapter XIVA KER, and it is stated to be on account of this anomaly that the present predicament of the petitioner arises. He would also refer to the decision of a learned Single Judge in Deepa S v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2010 (4) KHC 820 ], and in particular, the findings in paragraph 14 thereof, wherein, while acknowledging that there was a conflict between certain Rules in Chapter XIVA KER and the Rules in Chapter 9 of Part 1 KSR, the learned Judge opined that the Rule 56(4) of Chapter XIVA KER should be harmoniously construed and read along with the Rules in Appendix XIIC of the KSR so as to enable even the teachers of aided schools to seek the sanction of the Government for extension of their leave for up to 20 years. As already noted, the reference before us is based on a different view having been taken by another learned Single Judge, who opined that Rule 56(4) of Chapter XIVA KER was a special provision that prevailed over the general provisions on the principle of Generalia specialibus non derogant. 4. We have heard Sri. Dinesh P.T. the learned counsel for the petitioner, Senior Government Pleader Sri. Prem Chand R.Nair for the respondents of the State and Smt.Jenzia, the learned counsel for the Manager and Headmaster of the A.M.L.P. School, Chengottur. 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that on the facts in the instant case, the provisions of Rule 56 of Chapter XIVA KER have to be seen as carving out an exception in the matter of sanctioning of casual leave and all other kinds of leave to teachers of aided schools. 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that on the facts in the instant case, the provisions of Rule 56 of Chapter XIVA KER have to be seen as carving out an exception in the matter of sanctioning of casual leave and all other kinds of leave to teachers of aided schools. While Rule 56 (1) suggests that in the matter of casual leave and all other kinds of leave, the teachers of aided schools shall be governed by the same Rules as those applicable for teachers of Government schools, Sub Rule 4 of Rule 56 clearly carves out an exception for teachers in aided schools by making it clear that the said teachers would cease to be in service after a continuous absence of 5 years whether with or without leave. In our view, the effect of Sub Rule 4 of Rule 56 would be that, on the expiry of the continuous period of 5 years, there would be no requirement of referring to the KSR for determining the leave entitlement of the teacher in an aided school whether it be casual leave or any other kinds of leave. This would be because the reference to the KSR envisaged under Rule 56 (1) would be required only for the time limited permitted by the provisions of Rule 56 (4), and on expiry of the period of 5 years mentioned in Rule 56 (4), the teacher of a private aided school cannot look to the KSR for determining her leave entitlement. We, therefore, disapprove of the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Deepa S v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2010 (4) KHC 820 ] to the extent it holds otherwise. We also find that, at any rate, there was no consideration of the interplay between the two sets of Rules in the said judgment, as the learned Judge despite noticing a conflict between the rules, felt it was not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the Writ Petition to resolve that controversy. 6. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any illegality in the actions of the Manager in issuing Ext.P7 order impugned in the Writ Petition. Ext.P8 communication of the Headmaster, that was also impugned in the Writ Petition, also does not require any interference. 6. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any illegality in the actions of the Manager in issuing Ext.P7 order impugned in the Writ Petition. Ext.P8 communication of the Headmaster, that was also impugned in the Writ Petition, also does not require any interference. The Manager of the school was not legally obliged to follow the procedure under Rule 58 in respect of a leave that was not contemplated in terms of Rule 56 (4) of the KER. Since no other issue arises for consideration in the Writ petition, rather than answering the reference and remitting the matter back to the learned Single Judge, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the Writ Petition by answering the question referred as above.