JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. This writ petition was referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge in view of the pendency of LPA No. 336 of 2003 before a Division Bench. The petitioner has relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge giving rise to that appeal at the time of arguments and had claimed relief. It was in that context that the learned Single Judge referred this writ petition to be heard by a Division Bench since the decision in LPA No. 336 of 2003 is bound to have impact on the decision to be rendered in this writ petition. 2. We heard the arguments in LPA No. 336 of 2003 and LPA No. 377 of 2003, the present writ petition and the other connected matters in two different stages, but in the presence of all counsel. We have rendered a separate judgment in LPA Nos. 336 and 377 of 2003 [see 2003 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr)]. The main point canvassed herein are governed by the decision rendered by us in those appeals. 3. Various universities coming within the re-constituted State of Jharkhand requested the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, some time in the year 1997, to advertise for posts to be filled up in the universities, and to recommend candidates for appointment to various posts of lecturers. Pursuant to the advertisement, interviews were to be held. From 13.12.1997 to 30.10.2001, the interviews were held. Meanwhile, the existing State of Bihar was bifurcated by the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. On 15.11.2000, the State of Jharkhand came into being and the balance areas forming the existing State of Bihar became part of the re-constituted State of Bihar. There appears to have been some judicial intervention. Therefore, according to the Service Commission, interviews had to be held in stages. Ultimately, on 30.10.2001 results were announced by the Service Commission. Meanwhile, on 10.9.2001, an order had been issued by the Governor of Jharkhand directing the universities coming within the State of Jharkhand not to heed the recommendations of the Service Commission and informing them that the selection process will be carried out by the State of Jharkhand. Ultimately, on 30.10.2001 results were announced by the Service Commission. Meanwhile, on 10.9.2001, an order had been issued by the Governor of Jharkhand directing the universities coming within the State of Jharkhand not to heed the recommendations of the Service Commission and informing them that the selection process will be carried out by the State of Jharkhand. On 13.12.2000 by another order in exercise of powers under Section 85 of the Reorganisation Act, the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 had been adapted by the State of Jharkhand with the modifications indicated in that order including the name of the Enactment which was changed into Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. The Service Commission, proceeding on the basis that it retained the power to make recommendations as per the requisitions made in the year 1997, proceeded to make recommendations. The recommendations were sent in November, 2002. This writ petition and the writ petition giving rise to LPA Nos. 336 and 377 of 2003 were filed essentially praying for a direction to the State of Jharkhand and the various universities in its territory to appoint candidates recommended by the Service Commission after quashing the order dated 10.9.2001 issued by the Governor of Jharkhand. According to the petitioner and others similarly situated, the State of Jharkhand not having constituted the Jharkhand State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, the State of Jharkhand and the universities were obliged to honour the recommendations made by the Bihar State Universities Service Commission in view of its continuance in the eyes of law by virtue of Section 66 of the Reorganisation Act and by virtue of the continued application of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission Act, 1987 by operation of Section 84 of the Reorganisation Act. 4. We have dealt with the main question regarding the sustainability of the order of the Governor dated 10.9.2001 and its effect, in our judgment in LPA Nos. 336 and 377 of 2003 [Siddhu Kanhu University etc. v. Dr. Arjun Prasad Sinha and Ors., 2003 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr)]. We do not think it necessary to reiterate those reasons here. 4. We have dealt with the main question regarding the sustainability of the order of the Governor dated 10.9.2001 and its effect, in our judgment in LPA Nos. 336 and 377 of 2003 [Siddhu Kanhu University etc. v. Dr. Arjun Prasad Sinha and Ors., 2003 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr)]. We do not think it necessary to reiterate those reasons here. In that judgment, we have held that the power to issue the said order was traceable to Section 85 of the Reorganisation Act and it was supported by the executive power available to the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and that the said direction was binding on the universities which had come into the fold of the State of Jharkhand. The essential argument in this case by the senior counsel was based on Section 66 of the Reorganisation Act and the continuance of the Service Commission under the 1987 Act since it became an inter-state body corporate by virtue of its provisions constituting it as a body corporate and in view of the fact that the corporation had become an Inter- state body corporate by virtue of provisions of part-II of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Of course, the learned senior counsel, by way of pleadings introduced at a belated stage by way of supplementary affidavit towards the end of the hearing, also attempted to raise a contention that the notification dated 10.9.2001 was never published in the Official Gazette and going by Section 6 of the Bihar General Clauses Act, the order could not come into force unless it was notified. But in answer, the learned Government counsel produced before us the gazette on that day. Therefore, the said contention was not pursued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 5. Another argument put forward by learned counsel was based on the fact that the order dated 10.9.2001 did not give any reason for the issuance of such an order and this was necessary. Counsel sought to derive support for this position by reference to the decision in State of Uttranchal v. Siddhartha Srivastava, 2003 (4) Supreme 379 . 5. Another argument put forward by learned counsel was based on the fact that the order dated 10.9.2001 did not give any reason for the issuance of such an order and this was necessary. Counsel sought to derive support for this position by reference to the decision in State of Uttranchal v. Siddhartha Srivastava, 2003 (4) Supreme 379 . Learned counsel pointed out that in that decision, the Supreme Court had examined the reasons given by the State of Uttranchal for rejecting the recommendations made by the U.P. Public Service Commission and had found those reasons relevant and proper and that was the reason for upholding the refusal of the State of Uttranchal to accept the recommendations of the U.P. Public Service Commission. But with respect to the learned counsel, we find that in that case, the Supreme Court also examined the reasons, since the reasons had been mentioned in the decision of the Government not to accept the recommendations and make appointments. It is not possible to understand the ratio of the said decision as laying down a proposition that an order or a decision like the one dated 10.9.2001, would be struck down if it had not sent out reasons for that decision. Essentially, it is a question whether the order could be treated as one under Section 85 of the Reorganisation Act and once it is found that the power to issue the order can be traced to Section 85 of the Reorganisation Act, the Court has necessarily to proceed on the basis of such an order since such power is conferred on the executive to be exercised within two years of coming into force of the Reorganisation Act by Section 85 of that Act. Moreover, we are not in a position to agree fully with the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 10.9.2001 does not give any reason. It gives the reason that after the coming into existence of the State of Jharkhand on 15.11.2000, the selection to various posts in the State would be made by the State and for that reason, recommendations of the Bihar Service Commission are not to be accepted by the various universities which come within the State of Jharkhand. The reason cannot be said to be irrelevant or irrational. Therefore, we over-rule that argument 6. The reason cannot be said to be irrelevant or irrational. Therefore, we over-rule that argument 6. Learned senior counsel then argued that there is no plea of any change in reservation policy in this case, like in the case before the Supreme Court referred to above. In view of our conclusion as above, this aspect may not loom large. But we must say that it is also not possible to accept the submission that there is no change in reservation policy in the State of Jharkhand. Factually, there has been change and we had to deal with it elsewhere. Of course, counsel may be correct in submitting that there is no specific plea of that in the counter affidavit. But then this aspect got projected only in view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to was reported in the issue of Supreme Today dated 7.7.2003, after the writ petition was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. 7. Similarly, we do not see anything in our judgment in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1429 of 2002 relied on by the petitioner, which goes against the view that we have adopted in the judgment in the Letters Patent Appeals and herein. Counsel for some of the universities and respondent No. 5 herein raised a contention that the action of the Service Commission in making the recommendations in November, 2002 was without bona fides and the entire action is the subject matter of a Cabinet vigilance inquiry ordered by the Government of Bihar. In the view we have taken, we do not think it necessary to pursue this aspect further or to pronounce upon this contention or the effect of setting afoot of the Cabinet vigilance enquiry on the recommendations made by the Service Commission. In view of our conclusion, that the order dated 10.9.2001 was one coming within the purview of Section 85 of the Reorganisation Act and it stops the operation of the Service Commission Act, 1987, which was not adapted by the State of Jharkhand, but which could be deemed to be in operation by virtue of Section 84 of the Reorganisation Act, we are satisfied that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief. We also find no merit in the challenge to the order of the Governor dated 10.9.2001. We also find no merit in the challenge to the order of the Governor dated 10.9.2001. We find the said order to be well within the power of the State acting through the Governor to issue the notification both in terms of the constitutional provisions and the Reorganisation Act. In that view of the matter, this writ petition has only to be dismissed. The writ petition is hence dismissed.