Honble KOKJE, J.–The respondent Sergeant Tomar Chander Shekhar Singh filed a petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for acting/substantive rank of JWO from an appropriate date. He had also sought quashing of below grade rating given to him for two years and for ignoring rating for the purpose of promotions. This petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Union of India, therefore, has filed this appeal. (2). The respondent-petitioner was posted as Flight Engineer-II, substantive Sergeant in the trade of Flight Engineer w.e.f. 15th August, 1989. The next promotion from this rank is to the rank of Flight Engineer-I (Junior Warrant Officer). According to the petitioner he had completed four years as substantive Flight Engineer-II on 14.8.1993 and was eligible for promotion to Flight Engineer-I with effect from 15.8.1993 irrespective of the vacancies in that rank in terms of para 14 of the Air Force Instructions (AFI) 19/62. According to the petitioner he was also eligible for acting promotion to the rank of Flight Engineer-I on completion of 3 years substantive service in the rank of Flight Engineer-II in terms of para 17 of AFI 19/62 w.e.f. 15.8.92. The petitioner was neither given acting rank nor was promoted substantively to the rank of Flight Engineer-I. According to the petitioner he was not granted promotion because of below grading entries in his service record for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95. The petitioner further contended that his assessment for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 has been superior and he was strongly recommended for commendation by the Chief of the Air Staff during the year 1993 for his dedication to service, devotion to duty and excellent flight safety record. The petitioner further contended that he had a good record of flying in his Blue Book and Flying Log Book and was even cleared for VIP duties. The petitioner contended that firstly he has to be promoted without looking into the service record as the promotion has to be given irrespective of any vacancies and on fulfilling the conditions set out in AFI 19/62. Secondly, the entries in the service record deserve to be quashed in view of the excellent record of the petitioner. (3). The petitioner contended that firstly he has to be promoted without looking into the service record as the promotion has to be given irrespective of any vacancies and on fulfilling the conditions set out in AFI 19/62. Secondly, the entries in the service record deserve to be quashed in view of the excellent record of the petitioner. (3). In reply, it was contended on behalf of the Union of India that the petitioner was duly considered for promotion in the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 but could not be promoted as he failed to obtain minimum laid down marks and was placed below grade. It was contended that in addition to the conditions laid down in paragraph 13 to 16 of AFI 19/62 Air Men must be considered suitable in all respects to hold the higher rank before they are promoted substantively. (4). The learned Single Judge relying on another Single Bench decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5636/91, Sergeant Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India decided on 27th January, 1994 (1), held that the promotion had to be given automatically on fulfillment of certain conditions which the petitioner fulfilled. In Sergeant Krishna Kumar case (Supra) this Court has held that administrative orders issued contrary to the statutory rules cannot be taken to have legal force and Air Force Instructions cannot be amended by administrative circulars. (5). In this appeal it is contended on behalf of the Union of India that the lear- ned Single Judge did not consider their contention that Air Force Instructions 19/62 itself contain paragraph 12 which requires that in addition to the conditions laid down in paragraph 13 to 16 thereof, suitability in all respects to hold the higher rank in essential for substantial promotion. According to the learned counsel for the Union of India, the subsequent circular prescribing revised selection criteria for promotion of Airmen does not amend the AFI 19/62 itself but only provides as to how the suitability of the candidate will be judged for the purpose of paragraph 12 of AFI 19/62. The learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary submits that in the garb of providing criteria for testing suitability, new terms and conditions for promotion cannot be imposed and according to the learned counsel the circular dated 16th November, 89 does that only. The learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary submits that in the garb of providing criteria for testing suitability, new terms and conditions for promotion cannot be imposed and according to the learned counsel the circular dated 16th November, 89 does that only. According to the learned counsel even the circular dated 16th November, 89 does not apply to the Airmen, air crew categories to which the respondent petitioner belonged. (6). Having considered the rival contentions carefully, we are of the view that this appeal has no force and the petition has been rightly allowed. AFI 19/62 have statutory force and these instructions governed the promotion to the rank of Flight Engineer-I also. Paragraph 12, 14 and 17 are necessary to be quoted for better appreciation of the question. ``Paragraph 12:- In addition to the conditions laid down in paragraphs 13 to 16 airmen must be considered suitable in all respects to hold the rank before they are promoted substantively. Paragraph 14:- Promotion to Flight Engineer-I will be irrespective of vacancies in the rank of Flight Engineer-I and will be confined to Flight Engineer-II who:- (a) Complete 12 years of total service or 4 years as substantive Flight Engineer-II whichever is later. (b) pass such proficiency test as laid down by Air Headquarters. Paragraph 17:- Acting Promotion: Acting ranks may be granted against establishment vacancies to individuals of requisite rank and seniority are not available for substantive promotion against these vacancies. Provided the airmen are otherwise fit, the minimum service required in such substantive rank for the grant next higher acting rank is given below:- (a) From Flight Engineers III to Flight Engineer-II on successful completion of the probationer period. (b) From Flight Engineers II to Flight Engineer-I three years. (c) From Flight Engineer I to Warrant Flight Engineer-one year. (d) From Warrant Engineer to Master Flight Engineer-two years. (7). There is no dispute that the respondent-petitioner fulfills the criteria laid down in paragraph-14. The only difficulty is that he is not found suitable for the pur- pose of paragraph 12 because he had low grades in annual assessments for two years. According to the appellants they have judged the suitability of the respondent as required by paragraph 12 by following the revised selection criteria for promotion circulated vide circular dated 16th November, 1989. The only difficulty is that he is not found suitable for the pur- pose of paragraph 12 because he had low grades in annual assessments for two years. According to the appellants they have judged the suitability of the respondent as required by paragraph 12 by following the revised selection criteria for promotion circulated vide circular dated 16th November, 1989. By this circular for the promotion from Sergeant to JWO, a candidate has to obtain 350 marks out of 500 in an assessment made on the basis of yearwise annual assessments of Airmen. Yearwise annual assessments are made showing assessment of medical category, character, Trade proficiency, discipline drill and bearing, interests in sports and Airmen like qualities and marks are given out of maximum marks provided for each count. According to the Chart produced for our perusal, in 1993-94 the respondent petitioner got 330 marks only in the assessments for the last 5 years from 1988 to 1992 and thus falling short of minimum 350 marks out of 500 required for suitability. Similarly in 1994-95 he obtained 342 marks for the period of 5 years from 1989 to 1993 again falling short of minimum 350 marks required for suitability. Thus if we uphold the contention of the appellants that they are entitled to judge the suitability according to a criteria devised by them on the basis of administrative instructions then the respondent petitioner would have no case. If we hold that the circular deciding the criteria for suitability in fact amends the statutory Air Force Instructions the appeal will have to be dismissed. (8). When we examine provisions of AFI 19/62 we find that the eligibility qua- lifications for promotion are set out specifically in AFI 19/62 itself. Paragraph 14 clearly states that promotion to Flight Engineer-I will be irrespective of vacancies in the rank of Flight Engineer-I and will be confined to Flight Engineer-II who (a) complete 12 years of total service or 4 years as substantive Flight Engineer-II whichever is later, (b) pass such proficiency test as laid down by Air Headquarters. It is admitted that the respondent-petitioner has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 14. He has put in 4 years service as substantive Flight Engineer-II and has also completed 12 years of total service. He has also passed proficiency test laid down by the Air Headquarters. It is admitted that the respondent-petitioner has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 14. He has put in 4 years service as substantive Flight Engineer-II and has also completed 12 years of total service. He has also passed proficiency test laid down by the Air Headquarters. The appellants are not promoting him on the ground that he was not considered suitable as required by paragraph 12. (9). The question therefore is as to what could be the criteria for judging `suitability in all respects for the purpose of paragraph 12. Does it allow the appellants to prescribe further and stricter criteria for promotion over and above the already specifically prescribed criteria by the Air Force Instructions having statutory force? It will also have to be considered whether such an additional crite- ria can be prescribed even in promotions to be given irrespective of vacancies i.e. promotions which are not dependent on competition amongst eligible candidates. We are of the opinion that the words ``considered suitable in all respects to hold the higher rank would not permit prescribing by administrative instructions additional criteria for eligibility for promotion over and above the criteria already pres- cribed by paragraph 14. The words clearly indicate that the candidates who are eligible under paragraph 13 to 16 shall not be entitled to promotion if they are disqualified on some other grounds. Suitability for the purpose of paragraph 12 cannot be decided on the basis of merits of a candidate. It could only mean that he should not be disqualified because of some incapacity like medical category or a misconduct. Paragraph 14 of AFI 19/62 provides the criteria of experience as also proficiency and promotion is to be irrespective of vacancies which clearly means that it is not on the basis of competitive merit. When that it so, a person who fulfills the criteria prescribed by paragraph 14 can be deprived of promotion only if he suffers some positive disqualification rendering him unsuitable for holding the higher rank and not on the basis that he is not up to the mark on merits. (10). We therefore find that the administrative instructions issued for judging suitability for promotion for the purpose of paragraph 12 of AFI 19/62 cannot be enforced as they virtually amend the AFI 19/62 which has statutory force, without authority of law. We do not therefore find any force in this appeal. It is dismissed. (10). We therefore find that the administrative instructions issued for judging suitability for promotion for the purpose of paragraph 12 of AFI 19/62 cannot be enforced as they virtually amend the AFI 19/62 which has statutory force, without authority of law. We do not therefore find any force in this appeal. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The order of the learned Single Judge if it has not been complied with as yet shall be complied with within a period of two months from today.