considered, and rejected, the inclusion of the Commission’s “additional employees” in the SPMS. At one point in its drafting, Maryland House Bill 1121 of 1997 included a new subsection that would have explicitly placed BR § ll-207(a) additional employees in “the Skilled Service of the State Personnel Management System.” H.D. 1121 § 1 (Md.1997). Although the addition of such a subsection would certainly have settled the question, its rejection does not lead to as clear an answer. Indeed, we think that to read such a rejected amendment as an exception of the Commission’s “additional employees” from the SPMS is to reach far beyond the canons of statutory construction as they have been applied in Maryland. See Amalgamated Cas. Ins. Co. v. Helms, 239 Md. 529, 535-36, 212 A.2d 311 (1965) (<HOLDING>); see also State Ins. Comm’r v. Nationwide Mut.
holding that a court may not rewrite the statute to insert an additional requirement not placed there by the legislature holding that the dominant rule to be observed in construction of statute is to give effect to intention of legislature holding that the court may not under the guise of statutory construction rewrite a statutory provision holding that the rule of strict construction does not require the court to assign the narrowest possible interpretation to the statute holding that the courts in the absence of ambiguity should as a general rule confine themselves to a construction of a statute as written and not attempt under the guise of construction to supply omissions or remedy possible defects in the statute or to insert exceptions not made by the legislature