JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an appeal by the petitioner appellant Mukunda Murari Shaw. He made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. He was a permanent Computer in the office of the Director of Land Records and Survey, West Bengal. The Director, Land Records and Survey, made an order on the 15th May, 1959, appointing Shri Jogesh Chandra Bhadra, permanent Computer, as Head Computer on probation for one year. This was supposed to be in supersession of the rights and legitimate claims of the appellant applicant. He appealed to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue rejected his appeal. Hence this application for a Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. FULL use was made by the appellant of the fact that he was senior to Shri Bhadra with reference to the dates of the substantive permanent appointments. It was argued that the supersession without giving an opportunity to the appellant to explain the adverse remarks in the confidential reports violates Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In the first place the appellant cannot show that there is any statutory provision to the effect that he has a right to promotion. A legal right to promotion unless backed up by statutory provisions and rules cannot he considered under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no cause of action. If a senior person is superseded in the matter of promotion, there are ample authorities to support promotion for instance, (1) High Court v. Amalkumar, A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1704, (2) Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan, A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1911. The appellant has failed to show any rules of statutory force upon which he can find a legal claim to be promoted on the strength of seniority alone. There is no statutory rule conferring a legal right to promotion by way of seniority. It is true that the appellate authority has considered the appellant as not being eligible for promotion to the higher grade because of the adverse remarks in his confidential roll as being "too green" and not at all "useful rather a burden of the computation section". It is true that the appellate authority has considered the appellant as not being eligible for promotion to the higher grade because of the adverse remarks in his confidential roll as being "too green" and not at all "useful rather a burden of the computation section". For the purpose of promotion as between persons of same rank the confidential character roll can be examined by promoting authorities and there is no obligation to give notice to persons concerned about the confidential reports unless Special Statutory Provision or rules provide for it. 3. THEN, Mr. Dutt appearing for the appellant contended that this was a case of reduction in rank. But, in my view, there is no question of reduction in rank in this case, because the appellant has remained where he was. Promotion from one rank to another in that background cannot lead to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The appellant has not been reduced or lowered in the rank held by him. He has only been denied the chance of a promotion to the higher post upon an assessment of merit which lay at the discretion of the superior authority. The remarks in the confidential roll are made for the purpose of making such an assessment. The appellant cannot claim to be heard at the time of promotion merely because the confidential remarks are sought to be used against him. 4. IT was then contended that according to rules 15 and 18 of the Bengal Subordinate Service Rules, the Board of Revenue could not decide the appeal without hearing the appellant. These rules apply to penal proceedings, Refusal to promote does not involve any penal action. The appellate authority and the superior authority considered what they thought to be best and appointed Shri Bhadra, respondent No. 5 as the proper person. That the appellate authority and the appointing authority had every right to do. Lastly it was urged that the appellant belongs to the Schedule Caste. He has a right to special consideration. Mr. Dutt relied on Article 16, sub-clause (4) of the Constitution. He also relied on Article 335 of the Constitution. It will be, therefore, essential to look into these constitutional provisions. Lastly it was urged that the appellant belongs to the Schedule Caste. He has a right to special consideration. Mr. Dutt relied on Article 16, sub-clause (4) of the Constitution. He also relied on Article 335 of the Constitution. It will be, therefore, essential to look into these constitutional provisions. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, the general principle is that no citizen shall, on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. Sub-clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution states as follows : "nothing in this article shall prevent the state from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State". 5. THIS aforesaid provision only says this that this Article shall not prevent the State from making any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class. But no provision has in this case been made for this particular post of Computer in favour of Scheduled Castes. Had it been made, this certainly could the enforced. Therefore, the question of any provision under Article 16 (4) being violated does not arise here at all. Then comes Article 335 of the Constitution which says: "the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State". 6. MR. Dutt drew our attention to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, made under Article 341 (1) of the Constitution and showed us the provision relating to West Bengal. In that Schedule, Sunris excluding Saha is a Scheduled Caste. People who were Sunris excluding Sahas are and belong to the Scheduled Caste. But this does not help Mr. Dutt's contention. Assuming that the appellant was within the Schedule, that only means that he was a Scheduled Caste. But before Article 16 (4) of the Constitution applies, he has got to show us provisions made by the State in respect of reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class. But this does not help Mr. Dutt's contention. Assuming that the appellant was within the Schedule, that only means that he was a Scheduled Caste. But before Article 16 (4) of the Constitution applies, he has got to show us provisions made by the State in respect of reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class. There has been no provision made by the State. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, is not such a provision. That constitutional order was made under Article 341 of the Constitution which says : "the President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that state or Union territory, as the case may be. " That is all what the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, has done. It has included Sunris as a Scheduled Caste. About the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes, Article 335 of the Constitution enjoins that they shall be taken into consideration, but it must be "consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration". Maintenance of efficiency of the administration is certainly a very cogent consideration under that Article of the Constitution. See (3) General Manager, Southern Railway and another v. Rangachari, A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 38. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.