Judgment 1. This writ petition by Singhbhum Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital and its Principal in representative capacity on behalf of 20 students of the college has been filed for quashing the decision of the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University communicated by its Registrar under letter no. 423 dated 16.6.2001, disallowing the students of the college to appear at the ensuing BHMS examination on the ground of lack of territorial jurisidiction after coming into existence of the State of Jharkhand under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 . 2. The point at issue seems to be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab V/s. Balbir Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 242 -AIR 1977 Supreme Court 629, wherein interpreting the provisions of Section 88 read with section 2 (g) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966similar to those of sections 84 and 2 (f) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 the Court held that even administrative orders not amounting to law continues to be in force in successor Stateafter divisionunless and until they are changed or repudiated by the successor State. The Court in that case was dealing with the effect of administrative order. The instant case stands on better footing inasmuch as a statutory notificationa law within meaning of section 2 (f) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act is holding the field and unless it is superseded by another notification in the successor State i.e. State of Jharkhand, it will continue to apply to the institutions in that State. In other words, the petitioner- college will continue to be covered by the notification issued under section 3 of the Bihar State Universities Act whereby the Homeopathic colleges of the undivided State were affiliated with the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University and it became the examining body to hold examinations in Homeopathic courses. Sections 84 and 2 (f) of the said Act are as under: "84. Territorial extent of laws.The provisions of Part II of this Act shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, the territorial references in any such law to the State of Bihar shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within the existing State of Bihar before the appointed day. 2(f) "law" includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme notification or other instrument having immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of Bihar." 3. From a conjoint reading of the above it is clear, that all laws in force immediately before the appointed day i.e. the day the division of State became effective, continue to be applicable notwithstanding the change in the territories, and a notification being law, as such, remains valid and binding so far as the territories comprising the new State are concerned. 4. However, before disposing of the case, following the ratio laid down in the Balbir Singhs case (supra), the Court thought it appropriate to issue notice to the State of Jharkhand. Accordingly, by order dated 8.1.2002 the State of Jharkhand was added as a respondent, and notice was served on Shri Shyam Kishore Sharma, its retained counsel. Jharkhand State has filed counter affidavit sworn by Dr. Amreshwar Prasad, Officer-on-Special Duty Homeopathic, Jharkhand, stating that the State of Jharkhand has initiated the process of issuing notification under section 3 of the Universities Act affiliating Homeopathic institutions with one of the Universities of the State. The proposal was returned on account of certain defect as it has not been properly routed as per the Rules of Executive Business. Steps are being taken afresh and it is expected that within six weeks time the required notification will be issued. 5. The counter affidavit abovesaid was sworn on 5.2.2002. Understandably it refers to state of affairs existing sometime ago. In the circumstances, it seems, four weeks time will be sufficient, as per the stand of the Jharkhand State, for issuing the notification. 6. Shri Indu Shekhar Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, expressed apprehension that issuance of notification in terms of section 3 of the Universities Act may not serve the purpose inasmuch as none of the Universities in the State of Jharkhand has any faculty in Homeopathy and, therefore, the University will not be in a position to hold the examination. In response to this submission, it submitted that even if it be accepted that Ranchi University or other Universities in the State do not have regular faculty in homeopathic science, alternative arrangment can be made. Shri Sinha then submitted that direction should be issued to hold the examination by March 2002. In response to this submission, it submitted that even if it be accepted that Ranchi University or other Universities in the State do not have regular faculty in homeopathic science, alternative arrangment can be made. Shri Sinha then submitted that direction should be issued to hold the examination by March 2002. 7. In course of hearing it came to light that a writ petition by the petitioner- College has been filed in the Jharkhand High Court through its Principal seeking direction upon the BR Ambedkar Bihar University to permit the students of the college to appear at the ensuing BHMS examination. Shri Sinha clarified that the subject matter of said writ petition is different as it relates to students other than the 20 students for whom the present writ petition has been filed. He stated that, as a matter of fact, pursuant to interim order passed in that case the concerned students have already appeared at the examination. It is not necessary to go into this and allied issues. These facts have been stated only to make the record straight. 8. Coming to the core issue, in view of the willingness and readiness of the Government of Jharkhand to affiliate the homeopathic colleges of the State with one of the Universities in the State of Jharkhand under section 3 of the State Universities Act, it does not seem necessary to issue direction upon the respondent BR Ambedkar Bihar University to allow the students of the petitioner college to appear at the examination. It is expected that the Jharkhand Government will adhere to its stand and issue the notification within four weeks from today. As far as the actual holding of the examination is concerned, it is again expected that it will hold the examination as expeditiously as possible, preferably by May 2002. 9. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.