JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the orders in (1) Pro.Na.Ka.No.2564/Nir.3(5)/2014 dated 04.09.2014 of the first respondent and (2) Pro.Na.Ka.No.106/A1/2014 dated 11.04.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent, to quash the same in so far as it is related to the petitioner and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to serve as Supervisor, Grade-I and to draw the pay and allowances admissible for the post.) 1. The order of reversion, reverting the writ petitioner from the post of Supervisor, Grade-I to the Post of Multi-purpose Health Worker is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that she was promoted from the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker to the post of Supervisor Grade-I on temporary basis. The petitioner was informed that she should pass the prescribed departmental test within a period of probation in the promoted post of Supervisor Grade-I. Admittedly, the petitioner had not passed the requisite departmental test within the period of probation and therefore, the respondents issued the impugned order, reverting the writ petitioner from the promotion post. 3. According to Rule 26(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, in case the petitioner fails to pass any of the tests or examinations for which he has so appeared, the appointing authority shall by order, discharge him from the service. “Explanation:- The maximum period up to which the probation of a Government servant shall be extended so as to enable him to acquire the test qualification be fixed as five years. If he does not acquire the test qualification even within the maximum period of five years, he shall be reverted and the qualified and eligible juniors shall be considered for promotion. If such a person is appointed by direct recruitment and has not acquired the test qualification even within the maximum period of five years, his probation shall be terminated.” 4. If such a person is appointed by direct recruitment and has not acquired the test qualification even within the maximum period of five years, his probation shall be terminated.” 4. Perusal of Rule 26(b)(ii) is clear that “if within the period of probation prescribed in the special rules for the service or within the extended period of probation, as the case may be, a probationer has appeared for any such tests or for any examinations in connection with the acquisition of any such qualifications and the results of the tests or examinations for which he has so appeared as not known before the expiry of such period, he shall continue to be on probation until the publication of the results of the tests or examinations for which he has appeared or the first of them in which he fails to pass, as the case may be. In case the probationer fails to pass any of the tests or examination for which he has so appeared, the appointing authority shall, by order, discharge him from the service.” 5. Therefore, the rule is very clear and the authorities have acted in accordance with the Rules. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner had not cleared the test within the period of probation as contemplated under the Rules stated supra. The respondents have initiated action by invoking the said Rule and issued notice to the writ petitioner and by affording an opportunity issued the final order discharging her services. 6. Question arises, whether the High Court by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can undo the exercise of an authority which is otherwise in accordance with the statutory rules in force. Misplaced sympathy or leniency in such matters would lead to bad precedent and result in invalidating the rules, which is otherwise constitutional or to be scrupulously followed by the authorities. Therefore, the power of judicial review cannot be extended for the purpose of diluting or invalidating the service rules which is force. No inefficiency must be crept in the public administration as the efficiency in public administration is the constitutional mandate. 7. Certain qualification examinations, special tests are contemplated for public servants in order to test their efficiency and for the purpose of providing effective public service to the citizen of our great nation. No inefficiency must be crept in the public administration as the efficiency in public administration is the constitutional mandate. 7. Certain qualification examinations, special tests are contemplated for public servants in order to test their efficiency and for the purpose of providing effective public service to the citizen of our great nation. In the event of any misplaced sympathy or leniency by the High Courts, the High Courts are contributing for the inefficiency or otherwise invalidating the valid rules, which is in force for the purpose of maintaining efficiency in public service. Thus, the Courts are also expected to be cautious, while unnecessarily relaxing certain rules merely based on sympathy or otherwise. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that High Courts, while exercising the power of Judicial Review, has to test the validity of the processes, through which, decisions taken by the authority in consonance with the statutes and rules. While doing so, the power of judicial review need not be exercised for the purpose of diluting or invalidating the rule by showing any misplaced sympathy in favour of the individuals that will not only undermine the public administrative system but also deprive the meritorious candidates from securing the public employment. Once the rule contemplates a particular test to be passed by the employees within the period stipulated. If any candidate is unable to pass the test within the period of probation, then they become disqualified and the authorities competent is empowered to discharge the service. Therefore, the High Court has to examine whether the exercise of power by the competent authority is in consonance with the statute or the rules but not the decision itself. 9. In the present case, the order of promotion dated 11.08.2011 reveals that the promotion was granted on temporary basis and the petitioner cannot claim any seniority due to the temporary promotion. It is unambiguously stated in the promotion order that the petitioner should pass the requisite departmental test within the period of probation. It is further stated that in the event of any information regarding the disciplinary proceedings or absenting of departmental test or any wrong informations are identified, then the petitioner will be reverted without any notice. When the order of promotion stipulates certain terms and conditions for temporary promotion and the non-compliance of such conditions, resulted in reversion of the promotee. It is further stated that in the event of any information regarding the disciplinary proceedings or absenting of departmental test or any wrong informations are identified, then the petitioner will be reverted without any notice. When the order of promotion stipulates certain terms and conditions for temporary promotion and the non-compliance of such conditions, resulted in reversion of the promotee. The petitioner has accepted the temporary promotion based on the terms and conditions stipulated in the order of temporary promotion. While so, the grounds raised that the petitioner has not given any opportunity is untenable. Question of opportunity in the present case would not arise as the petitioner is not prejudiced since the promotion was granted temporarily on certain terms and conditions. When the terms and conditions stipulates that the petitioner should pass the departmental test within the period of probation and in the event of tracing out any writing informations on the ground of not passing of test, the petitioner will be reverted back to the lower post. When this being the conditions imposed, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order of reversion passed. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of assailing the order of reversion. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.