Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The prayers in the Original Petition are: (i) To declare that no junior non S.S.L.C. Excise Guard is liable to be preferred to a senior S.S.L.C. Excise Guard applying the 1:1 ratio provided in the Special Rules for promotion to the post of Preventive Officer; (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to effect promotions to the posts of Preventive Officers without giving junior non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards any preference over senior S.S.L.C. Excise Guards applying the ratio of 1:1 provided in the special rules. The promotion to the cadre of Excise Preventive Officer is governed by special Rules for the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service. The method of appointment to the post of Excise Preventive Officers are: (1) by direct recruitment; (2) promotion from the category of Excise Guards. Every 4th substantive vacancy shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment. The remaining vacancies shall be filled up by promotion from among Excise Guards possessing the minimum qualification of SSLC standard and those who do not possess this qualification in the ratio of 1:1. R.5 of the Special Rules prescribes the qualification. The qualifications for promotion as Excise Preventive Officer are as follows: "Must have to be in service for a period of not less than 3 years as Excise Guard for promotion as Preventive Officer. If he possesses the minimum educational qualifications of S SLC standard and atleast 7 years of service of such service the case of those who do not possess this qualification ....". 2. The constitutional validity of the ratio prescribed for promotion to the post of Excise Preventive Officers as well as for the post of Excise Inspectors was under challenge before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court. With regard to the ratio of 1:3 between Graduates and non-Graduates for promotion from the post of Excise Preventive Officers to the Second Grade Inspectors the Supreme Court held in the ruling reported in Basheer v. Karunakaran (1989 (2) KLT 3) that the above ratio is discriminatory. This was on the ground of historical circumstances prevailing in the State for a long time. This was on the ground of historical circumstances prevailing in the State for a long time. The question of ratio of 1:1 between S.S.L.C. and non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards for promotion to the post of Excise Preventive Officers came up before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upheld the above ratio in the ruling reported in Chandranv. Board of Revenue (1995 (1) KLT 12). Therefore, the respondents have necessarily to follow the above ratio in the matter of promotion to the cadre of Excise Preventive Officers. 3. Sri. Aravindakshan Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urged that while implementing the above ratio, the senior S.S.L.C. hand should not be bypassed by a junior Non-SSLC hand in the matter of promotion to the cadre of Excise Preventive Officer. Learned counsel read the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chandran's case (1994 (1) KLT12) and urged that while implementing the above ratio the claims of the senior S.S.L.C. hands should not be ignored and if a senior S.S.L.C. hand is not promoted, it will be violative of the above judgment. He stressed the point that a person with higher qualification and seniority cannot be overlooked in the matter of promotion while a junior person with lesser qualification is promoted. The above argument forgets the fact that there cannot be any higher or lesser qualification as far as the SSLC and non SSLC hands are concerned. When the ratio has been prescribed between two groups of persons both must be considered to be qualified. Otherwise, there is no rationale behind the prescription of a ratio which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The very prescription of ratio envisages the by passing of the seniority rule which is the normal rule for effecting promotion. In fact, in all the cases where ratio has been prescribed for promotion, the seniority has to be given a go bye. Therefore, when the statutory ratio prescribed in the Special Rules has been upheld, that must be implemented with full force. In such a contingency, if a senior hand's claim is ignored, there can not be any complaint. 4. In fact, in all the cases where ratio has been prescribed for promotion, the seniority has to be given a go bye. Therefore, when the statutory ratio prescribed in the Special Rules has been upheld, that must be implemented with full force. In such a contingency, if a senior hand's claim is ignored, there can not be any complaint. 4. The Supreme Court in Chandran's case while dealing with the argument on behalf of the SSLC Excise Guards held as follows: "We are not impressed with this submission because what the laying down of ratio does is postponement of the chances of promotion and not the denial of promotion as such. By providing the ratio of 1:1 the rule really gives the two categories equal opportunity, though the effect is that some non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, even if they are senior to S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, may get promoted to the higher post later, if the post to fall vacant be one meant for S.S.L.C. qualified Excise Guards. The senior most non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards would, in such an eventuality, be promoted to the next vacancy as mat would be meant for such an incumbent. Thus, the chance of promotion of non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards gets only deferred and not denied. It is a settled law that promotion cannot be claimed with the aid of Art.16 inasmuch as no incumbent has a right to be promoted and it is because of this a chance of promotion has not been regarded as incompassed within the right visualised by Art. As far as the senior non S.S.L.C. hands are concerned it is only a postponement of their chances to a later date. It is equally correct to say that as far as the senior SSLC hands are concerned it is only a question of postponement of their promotion to a later date. applying these principles 10 the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the respondents in strictly following the ratio in accordance with the seniority list. The petitioner can complain only if any of his junior S.S.L.C. hand is promoted; but he cannot complain against the promotion of any of his junior non S.S.L.C. hand, if that promotion is strictly in accordance with the ratio prescribed in the Special Rules. Under these circumstances. I do not find any merit in this Original Petition. The petitioner can complain only if any of his junior S.S.L.C. hand is promoted; but he cannot complain against the promotion of any of his junior non S.S.L.C. hand, if that promotion is strictly in accordance with the ratio prescribed in the Special Rules. Under these circumstances. I do not find any merit in this Original Petition. The same is dismissed.