The writ petitioners namely Sri Lalrinawma and Sri R. Lalnunmawia were appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector vide order dated 23.5.90 (Annexure III) and 26.7.90 (Annexure-A) on officiating basis in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. They were also allowed to draw increment pay on completion of one year service. 2. In the month of May, 1992 they applied for regularization of their services vide Annexures VI and VIA. Their applications for regularization was forwarded on 25.5.92 by the District Transport Officer with necessary recommendation. Thereafter the writ petitioners were finally selected by the Selection Committee and they were offered appointment vide Annexures VIII and VIIIA for appointment as such in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. Both writ petitioners were accepted the offer of appointment vide letters of acceptance dated 27.8.1992 (Annexures IX and IXA). Thereafter, the Govt issued the formal appointment letters appointing them in the scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300, specifying that lower scale was given to them for the period till they successfully complete the 3rd year course of Diploma in Engineering from the recognized Polytechnic. It may be mentioned here that at the time of their appointment in the year 1990, both the writ petitioners were holding Diploma in Engineering in two year course. 3. The writ petitioners successfully completed the third year course of Diploma in Engineering as stipulated in the appointment letter (Annexure X). The respondents allowed them to draw pay in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 with effect from 17.9.1992 i.e. the day when the appointment letter was issued. Thus the writ petitioners although given the scale of pay of Rs.l,640-2,900 was deprived of the benefits of increment and other service benefits for the initial period of their appointment. 4. It is therefore, necessary to examine whether the Govt was justified in issuing a fresh appointment order on 17.9.1992 instead of regularizing their services in view of the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the terms of appointment offered vide letters at Annexures VIII and VIIIA. 5. Mr. 4. It is therefore, necessary to examine whether the Govt was justified in issuing a fresh appointment order on 17.9.1992 instead of regularizing their services in view of the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the terms of appointment offered vide letters at Annexures VIII and VIIIA. 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Govt had relaxed the requirement of qualification by a notification issued on 27.9.1991 (Annexure XI) declaring the Diploma holders both in two and three year Engineering Course as equivalent to the prescribed qualification for the purpose of recruitment already made and therefore the initial appointment made in 1990 giving them the benefit of higher pay scale cannot be taken away by the Govt by issuing fresh appointment order (Annexure X) instead of regularization. Mr. N. Sailo, learned Govt Advocate referring to the affidavit-in-opposition submitted that the State Govt had no powers to relax the qualification vide notification dated 27.9.1991 with retrospective effect in order to cover the appointment already made and, therefore, the writ petitioners who were appointed prior to the issuance of the notification (Annexure XI) are not entitled to the higher pay scale and consequential service benefits. 6. It would appear from Annexure RI attached to the affidavit-in-opposition that the Govt of Mizoram in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribed the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles. The said notification shows that third year Diploma in Engineering was the minimum qualification prescribed for such post. But the notification at Annexure XI shows that the notification Rl prescribing minimum qualification stood relaxed rendering persons having two year Diploma in Engineering as eligible for the said post. This notification is still in force and has not been cancelled or amended even now. By virtue of this notification, the initial officiating appointment of the writ petitioners made in 1990 cannot be said to be bad in law so far the qualification is concerned. The notification dated 27.9.1991 was issued after the State was delegated with the powers under section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Central Govt vide notification dated 29.4.1991 (Annexure R2). It is, therefore, clear that the State was competent to issue the notification dated 27.9.1991 (Annexure XI). The notification dated 27.9.1991 was issued after the State was delegated with the powers under section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Central Govt vide notification dated 29.4.1991 (Annexure R2). It is, therefore, clear that the State was competent to issue the notification dated 27.9.1991 (Annexure XI). That apart Rule 7 of the Mizoram Transport Department (Group C Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 which is meant for Motor Vehicles Inspectors also provides for relaxation of any of the provisions of the Rules by the Governor. Therefore, it would be unjust and improper if the notification issued by the State Govt is now allowed to be challenged by the Govt itself. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the writ petitioners are in uninterrupted service with effect from the date of their initial appointment in 1990. They have also duly qualified hi the third year Diploma course in Engineering as stipulated in the appointment letter. Initially they were drawing the pay in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. On their final selection and appointment, the State had reduced the pay scale to Rs. 1,400-2,2100. The appointments were also in variation of the offer made vide Annexure VI and VIA. I, therefore, do not find any convincing reason in the impugned action of the State in not regularizing the services of the writ petitioners from date of initial appointment. Persons appointed on officiating basis against available cadre post and retained permanently fresh appointment could not be issued subjecting them to loss of benefits of previous uninterrupted service. Therefore, the petitioners are, in the opinion of this Court is entitled to service benefits such as seniority, increment of pay etc with effect from their respective dates of appointment. For this purpose, the order of appointment (Annexure X) has to be set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment order dated 17.9.92 (Annexure X) is hereby set aside. The petitioners are declared entitled to all service benefits like increment etc with effect from the dates of their initial appointment i.e. 23.5.90 and 26.7.90 respectively. The respondents are hereby directed to issue necessary orders regularizing the services of the petitioners and extending the benefits as indicated above. 9. No order as to costs.