the statute to cure the defects in the statute, however, I find that in the present case, I do not find any confusion or absurdity or repugnancy in the Ordiance or the Resolution for this Court to give an interpretation as is sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, a purposive interpretation and ratio of the judgment of Afcons Infrastructure ’s case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner goes against the petitioner because the object of the relevant subrule and the Resolution No.29 dated 07.4.1995 of the respondent no.2/University is to give summer vacations salary when there is no break in service, and whenever there is a break in service, the summer vacations salary would not be payable to an employee. Therefore, in fact the principle of harmonious construction or any issue of giving a purposive construction to the relevant sub-rule of Ordinance XII would in fact require that a teacher who has got a break in service, and which break in service is not illegal, that such a teacher is not entitled to the summer vacations salary.
