" The courts of this and other states have uniformly held that such transfers of functions and duties as were effected in this proceeding may be made, and that the same are not contrary to the letter or spirit of the civil service laws. McNeil v. Mayor and City Council of Peabody, 297 Mass. 499, 9 N.E.2d 566, involved a reorganization of certain civil service positions of the City of Peabody, and in discussing the right of the city to so reorganize, the court pertinently observed that while "the purpose of civil service legislation was to protect efficient public employees from partisan political control, . . . it was not designed to prevent a city from undertaking in good faith a reorganization of a municipal department in order to promote effectiveness and economy. [Citing various Massachusetts decisions.]" See also to like effect Fitzsimmons v. O'Neill, 214 Ill. 494; People v. McLaughlin, 362 Ill. 274; City of Chicago v. People ex rel. Byrne, 114 Ill. App. 145; People v. Finn, 237 Ill. App. 363; State ex rel. Dunbar v. City of Seattle, 121 Wn. 247, 208 P. 1092. The question presented in these cases is not whether the judgment of the city authorities was sound and correct, but whether their motives in ordering the change was proper, and the decisions must be regarded as establishing the broad principle that public bodies subject to civil service law, in the exercise of their discretion, may effect reorganizations, create new jobs and reassign job duties for any proper purpose; and having done so, their action is not subject to review by the courts except to determine whether there was or was not good faith and a reasonable exercise of discretion.