Judgment S.Tamilvanan, J. The Writ Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 15.12.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.4422 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to promote him as Deputy Registrar of the respondent University, as per law and confer all the consequential benefits. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 15.12.2011, aggreived by which the present writ appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed without considering the legal aspects, properly, as the appellant/ petitioner had the required qualification and experience to be promoted as Deputy Registrar of the respondent University. In this regard, the learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to ''Laws of the University'', published by the respondent Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli. Chapter-VI of the Laws of the University (Rules) deals with ''Service Conditions of the Establishment of the Bharathidasan University''. Annexure-I to Chapter-VI, at Page No.131 of the Rules gives details of category of employees, method of recruitment, qualification and experience and appointing authority, in respect of Non-Teaching Staff of the University. Sl.No.4 relates to Deputy Registrar/ Deputy Controller of Examinations and for the said posts, method of recruitment would be by direct recruitment and also by promotion from the cadre of Assistant Registrar. For direct recruitment, the required qualification and experience are respectively Post Graduate degree with five years of teaching experience and for the promotee cadre, the qualification prescribed is four years administrative experience as Assistant Registrar. The appointing authority for the said posts is the Syndicate of the University. 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner is the senior most Assistant Registrar, having administrative experience of more than 10 years as Assistant Registrar. However, he was not promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar. Hence he filed the writ petition, seeking an order in the nature of mandamus. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, hence, the appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner. 5. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent University, submitted that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to get promotion as Deputy Registrar. Hence he filed the writ petition, seeking an order in the nature of mandamus. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, hence, the appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner. 5. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent University, submitted that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to get promotion as Deputy Registrar. According to him, the appellant/petitioner got his degree through correspondence course, without undergoing +2 Examination. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent argued that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secy.to Govt., Information & Tourism Deptt, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 590, the petitioner would not be construed as a proper degree holder and therefore he is not qualified to be promoted as Deputy Registrar. He further argued that to become Deputy Registrar, by promotion, one should be a postgraduate degree holder, however, the appellant/petitioner did not possess the said qualification, while he was seeking promotion, hence, he was not considered for the same. 6. Per contra, it was argued by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant / petitioner that the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent University is contrary to Sl.No.4 in Annexure-I to Chapter-VI of the respondent University Rules (Laws of the University) and that the appellant / writ petition is entitled to get promotion as Deputy Registrar, as per the 'Laws of the University' (Rules), which reads as under: Sl.No. Category of Employees Method of recruitment Qualification and Experience Appointing Authority 4 Deputy  Registrar/ Deputy Controller of Examinations By direct recruitment/By promotion from the cadre of Assistant Registrar Post Graduate degree with five years of teaching/ administrative experience 4 years experience as Assistant Registrar Syndicate It is seen that the learned Single Judge held that the required qualification for the post of Deputy Registrar of the respondent is either a post-graduate with five years teaching experience or a post-graduate with four years administrative experience as Assistant Registrar. The learned Single Judge has further held that only due to poor drafting of the said laws of the University, the '/ (stroke)' in Column-3 relating to method of recruitment between ''by direct recruitment'' and ''by promotion'' has been put and it does not split the qualifications prescribed in Column-4 automatically. The learned Single Judge has further held that only due to poor drafting of the said laws of the University, the '/ (stroke)' in Column-3 relating to method of recruitment between ''by direct recruitment'' and ''by promotion'' has been put and it does not split the qualifications prescribed in Column-4 automatically. Above reading of the Rules makes it clear that an Assistant working under the respondent cannot become a Superintendent without a recognised degree and similarly, one cannot become an Assistant Registrar by promotion, without four years experience as Superintendent under the respondent. It is an admitted fact that educational qualification is not specifically stated in the Rules for the post of Assistant Registrar, as it is a promotion post from the feeder category of Superintendent, which requires the same educational qualification. 7. It is well settled that while interpreting any law, the Court cannot incorporate its view by adding any words to have a different meaning. In Annexure-I relating to Non-Teaching Staff, 28 categories of employees and also the mode of recruitment, qualifications, required experience and the appointing authority are clearly stated. The Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Controller of Examination are similar categories under the respondent, which is not in dispute. For the post of Deputy Registrar/Deputy Controller of Examinations, the appointing authority is the Syndicate. There are two methods of recruitment to the post of Deputy Registrar / Deputy Controller of Examination, one is direct recruitment and another is by way of promotion from the cadre of Assistant Registrar. Qualification and Experience prescribed for the said post is a post- graduate degree with five years of teaching or four years administrative experience as Assistant Registrar. Therefore, for a promotee cadre Deputy Registrar, the required qualification is administrative experience as Assistant Registrar for four years. In case of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examinations, there is only one avenue available, i.e. 'by promotion', as the said post is to be filled up only by promotion, for which the required qualification and experience is stated as four years experience as Superintendent and the appointing authority is the Syndicate of the University. Here also, under the column ''Qualification and Experience'' no educational qualification is stated, only experience is stated, since it is a promotional post and the feeder category is only Office Superintendent. Here also, under the column ''Qualification and Experience'' no educational qualification is stated, only experience is stated, since it is a promotional post and the feeder category is only Office Superintendent. The Superintendent is also a promotional post from the cadre of Assistant, for which the Vice-Chancellor of the University is the appointing authority. The qualification and experience prescribed for the post of Superintendent is any degree and a pass in Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I with not less than five years of service in the cadre of Assistant. As the required educational qualification is specifically stated for Superintendent in Sl.No.6 of the Annexure, the same educational qualification is applicable for any promotional cadres upto the level of Sl.No.4 i.e. Deputy Registrar, hence, only required experience in the feeder category is stated. Therefore, for promotee Deputy Registrar and promotee Assistant Registrar, no educational qualification is specifically stated in the Rules, since for the feeder category of Superintendent, the required educational qualification is stated as any degree and a pass in Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. Hence, it is crystal clear that any Assistant Registrar under the respondent University shall be a a graduate having passed Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. Therefore, for promotion cadre of Deputy Registrar, the required qualification is stated as Assistant Registrar, having four years experience as Assistant Registrar and the educational qualification is not specifically stated. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid Annexure-I relating to Non-Teaching Staff would clearly show that the qualification for a candidate for getting promotion as Deputy Registrar is only four years administrative experience as Assistant Registrar of the University. For direct recruitment, it is stated that the candidate must be a post-graduate degree holder with five years teaching experience. Therefore, for an Assistant Registrar to become a Deputy Registrar, by way of promotion, a degree is sufficient with four years administrative experience as Assistant Registrar and no post-graduate degree is required as that of Direct recruitment to the said post. 9. Another point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, for not promoting the appellant to the post of Deputy Registrar is that the appellant / petitioner has secured only a Bachelors Degree, without doing +2 Course, hence, according to him, the degree obtained by the appellant / petitioner could not be construed as a degree. 9. Another point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, for not promoting the appellant to the post of Deputy Registrar is that the appellant / petitioner has secured only a Bachelors Degree, without doing +2 Course, hence, according to him, the degree obtained by the appellant / petitioner could not be construed as a degree. In Annamalai University v. Secy.to Govt., Information & Tourism Deptt, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 590, the issue decided was with regard to the M.A.Degree obtained by a person, without a Bachelor degree and without passing +2 Course, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that getting a post-graduate degree, M.A., in a open University without passing +2 pass Examination and Bachelor degree could not be accepted as required qualification to be appointed as principal of a Film Institute. 10. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, since one of the appellants therein, namely N.Ramesh, who was appointed to post of Principal in Film and Television Institute of Tamil Nadu had straight-away got Masters Degree (M.A.) through Annamalai University without getting any basic degree and passing +2 Examination for the post of Principal. In the instant case, the appellant/petitioner, though working in the respondent University, got his Bachelors Degree through Annamalai University, after passing the required Entrance Test / Eligibility Test, conducted by the said University, as per their Rules, for which he has produced supporting documents, namely original Hall Ticket, etc., issued by the University and subsequently, he passed Bachelors Degree (B.A.). 11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Viduthalai further submitted that the appellant/petitioner herein lost his father at the young age, hence, he could not pursue his higher studies after 10th standard, due to his family circumstances, was forced to join in the services of the respondent University to earn for his family. However, on account of his personal interest and efforts taken by him, he got through the Entrance Test and was permitted to pursue his education and got B.A.Degree by his hard work and subsequently got M.A.Degree also. He got the degree only as per the Rules of the University. However, on account of his personal interest and efforts taken by him, he got through the Entrance Test and was permitted to pursue his education and got B.A.Degree by his hard work and subsequently got M.A.Degree also. He got the degree only as per the Rules of the University. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has got the degree in a short cut method and seeking unreasonable and unjustifiable benefit, without appreciating his hard efforts and unblemished record, his legitimate rights cannot be denied. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in K.Sakthi Rani v. Secretary, Bar Council of T.N., reported in (2010)4 MLJ 849 , subsequent to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secy.to Govt., Information & Tourism Deptt, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 590, considered the question as to whether the petitioners therein were entitled to succeed on the basis of the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, legitimate expectation and equity. It was a case where the petitioners therein without obtaining a basic degree, obtained M.A.Degree through the Open University System and got admitted in 3 years Law Course and after obtaining Law Degree enrolled themselves in the Rolls of Bar Counsel of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. After the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Annamalai University Case (supra), the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu sought to remove the petitioners from Rolls of the Bar Council, by bringing amendment to the Bar Council Rules. In those circumstances, it was held by the Division Bench that while deciding any issue, the Court has to consider the principles of promissory estoppel, acquiescence, legitimate expectation and equity, to meet the ends of justice. 13. In the instant case, as argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner, having considered the B.A.Degree obtained from Annamalai University, the appellant/petitioner was promoted by the respondent as Superintendent from the cadre of Assistant and having served for more than five years and passing the required Account Test, he was promoted further as Assistant Registrar and now he is serving for more than 10 years as Assistant Registrar with unblemished record. On the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent is estopped from raising a plea that the appellant/petitioner was not qualified to be promoted as Superintendent or Assistant Registrar in view of the legal concept of promissory estoppel and acquiescence. On the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent is estopped from raising a plea that the appellant/petitioner was not qualified to be promoted as Superintendent or Assistant Registrar in view of the legal concept of promissory estoppel and acquiescence. Similarly, legitimate expectation is also a legal concept enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to meet the ends of justice. Having served for more than 10 years and being the senior-most Assistant Registrar working in the Respondent University, with unblemished record, the appellant/ petitioner can have legitimate expectation of getting further promotion, as per the Rules, which cannot be disputed. We are of the considered view that the decision rendered in Annamalai University v. Secy.to Govt., Information & Tourism Deptt., reported (2009) 5 SCC 590, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. In the present case, the degree obtained by the appellant/petitioner is only as per the procedure known to law, after passing the Entrance Examination conducted by the University. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that the document showing the appellant/ petitioner's appearance in the Entrance Test was not produced before the learned Single Judge, for which the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the said question was not raised before the learned Single Judge by the respondent herein and therefore, there was no necessity to produce the aforesaid document, however, the respondent has raised the plea at present, hence, the original document is produced. Having gone through the documents, we are of the view that the Hall Ticket and other supporting documents issued by the Annamalai University could not be disputed at this stage, after promoting the petitioner as Superintendent and also Assistant Registrar. Hence, the said objection on the side of the respondent seems to be for argument sake, which cannot be justified at this stage, after so many years, so as to prevent further promotion of the appellant as Deputy Registrar. 15. After accepting the degree and the unmblemished service of the appellant / petitioner, he was promoted as Superintendent from the post of Assistant and then as Assistant Registrar, hence, it would not be fair on the part of the respondent to raise a plea that the appellant had not gone through the Entrance Test before securing his B.A. Degree. 15. After accepting the degree and the unmblemished service of the appellant / petitioner, he was promoted as Superintendent from the post of Assistant and then as Assistant Registrar, hence, it would not be fair on the part of the respondent to raise a plea that the appellant had not gone through the Entrance Test before securing his B.A. Degree. It is seen that the appellant/petitioner has legally obtained his bachelors degree, through a recognised University, as per the procedure known to law. Having accepted the degree and the required service experience, the respondent University promoted him as Superintendent and thereafter considering the required experience in the post of Superintendent, further promoted him as Assistant Registrar and now he is serving for about 10 years as Assistant Registrar. Hence, it is not open to the respondent University to raise a plea that the appellant/ petitioner was not possessing necessary educational qualification. 16. Having gone through the Annexure-I relating to Non-Teaching Staff in respect of Service Conditions and Establishment of the Respondent University, we are of the considered view that the qualification required for an Assistant Registrar for getting promotion as Deputy Registrar is only unblemished administrative experience as Assistant Registrar for not less than four years under the respondent. The required qualification of Post-Graduation and five years teaching experience relates to direct recruitment for the post of Deputy Registrar, which is nothing to do with the cadre of promotees, from the feeder category. Therefore, even for the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the cadre of Superintendent, Annexure-I does not speak about the educational qualification again, as the required educational qualification is prescribed in the feeder category itself. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no justification on the part of the respondent, in denying the legitimate right of promotion, for which the appellant / petitioner is legally entitled. However, the legal aspect was not considered in the impugned order passed in the writ petition, hence, we are of the view that the writ appeal has to be allowed. 17. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is ordered as prayed for. However, the legal aspect was not considered in the impugned order passed in the writ petition, hence, we are of the view that the writ appeal has to be allowed. 17. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is ordered as prayed for. The respondent is directed to consider the appellant/petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there is no order as to costs.