ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to modify the order dated 6.3.2019 (Annex.7) and amended confirmation order dated 8.7.2021 (Annex.9), allow the first ACP on completion of 09 years of service w.e.f. 10.10.2014 by considering her first date of appointment as 10.10.2005. Further directions have been sought to allow other consequential benefits by treating her initial date of appointment as 10.10.2005. 2. It is inter-alia indicated that the petitioner was initially appointment in the respondent department on the post of Teacher Gr.III under widow category by order dated 22.9.2005 (Annex.1) Pursuant to the said order the petitioner joined her duties on 10.10.2005. After completion of probation period of 02 years, an order dated 3.2.2010 was passed, whereby, the petitioner was allowed regular pay scale, annual increment and other notional benefits vide Annex.3. 3. In terms of the requirement of order of appointment, whereby, the petitioner was required to acquire the required qualification of STC within a period of three years, needful was done by her on 5.7.2009. The competent authority passed the order dated 24.4.2018 (Annex.6) confirming the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.10.2007. Whereafter, by order dated 6.3.2019, the petitioner was accorded first selection grade w.e.f. 5.7.2018. 4. Aggrieved of the date of grant of selection grade, the petitioner made representation (Annex.P/8) to the respondents seeking grant of selection grade w.e.f. 10.10.2014 with other consequential benefits. However, by order dated 8.7.2021 (Annex.9), the order dated 3.2.2010 (Annex.3) came to be revised and based on the fact that the petitioner had passed her STC on 5.7.2009, her date of regular appointment was shifted to 5.7.2009 and her date of confirmation was also changed to 5.7.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that at the time when the petitioner was appointed in the year 2005, there was no stipulation regarding the date of regularization being shifted to the date of acquiring the required qualification of STC and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly granted the benefit on completion of period of probation on 10.10.2007 and grant of regular pay scale/increments w.e.f. the said date and the action of the respondents in this regard is not justified. 6. 6. It was submitted that the respondents have wrongly relied on first proviso to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (‘the Rules 1971’) for the purpose of regularizing the petitioner from the date of acquisition of qualification of STC as the said provision was introduced by Amendment Rules, 2011 on 30.5.2011, prior to which there was no stipulation in this regard and as the respondents had already passed the order dated 3.2.2010 (Annex.3) the said order could not be modified/revised and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the first proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules, 1971 is explicit, which provides that the services of widows/divorced women appointed after relaxing the required qualification of STC shall be regularized from the date they acquire the required qualification and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 8. Submissions were also made that though the amendment was introduced in the year 2011, the same was merely clarificatory and as such the same would apply to the case of petitioner as well and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The petitioner was accorded appointment as Teacher Gr.III as a widow by order dated 22.9.2005. The order of appointment inter-alia required the following: ^^01- vÁf'kf{kr vk'kkfFkZ;ksa ds rhu o"kZ esa Á'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ÁkIr djus dh 'krZ dh opuc)rk gsrq 'kiFk&i= izkIr fd;k tkuk gSA tks de ls de uksVsjh }kjk Áekf.kr gksA** 11. Pursuant to the order of appointment, the petitioner joined on 10.10.2005. The petitioner acquired the requisite STC qualification on 5.7.2009, whereafter, order dated 3.2.2010 (Annex.3) came to be issued, putting an end to her period of probation and grant of annual grade increments. The date of end of probation was indicated as 10.10.2007. It appears that the petitioner thereafter kept on pursuing her case with the respondents for grant of selection grade etc., which resulted in passing of the order dated 24.4.2018 (Annex.6), wherein, the services of the petitioner were confirmed w.e.f. 10.10.2007 with her date of appointment as dated 10.10.2005. 12. By order dated 6.3.2019, the petitioner was accorded first selection grade (ACP) w.e.f. 5.7.2018. 12. By order dated 6.3.2019, the petitioner was accorded first selection grade (ACP) w.e.f. 5.7.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner required the respondents to accord her benefit of first ACP w.e.f. 10.10.2014, based on which the respondents revised the order dated 3.2.2010 and based on the fact that the petitioner acquired her STC qualification on 5.7.2009, indicated her date of regular appointment as 5.7.2009 and date of confirmation as 5.7.2011 so as to bring the same in conformity with the date of ACP i.e. 5.7.2018 (09 years from the date of regular appointment). 13. The relevant provision, first proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules, 1971, at the time of petitioner’s appointment i.e. prior to its amendment in the year 2011, read as under: “Provided that the Widows and Divorced Women will be given relaxation in qualification of STC or B.Ed. as the case may be for appointment to the post of Teacher or Senior Teacher they are otherwise eligible and furnish an undertaking to the effect that the qualification of STC or B.Ed. as may be relevant shall be obtained within a period of three years. They shall also be eligible for grant of Study Leave soon after their appointment for acquiring the qualification of STC or B.Ed.” 14. A perusal of the above proviso indicates that the same only provides for grant of relaxation in the qualification of STC and required furnishing of an undertaking to the effect that the qualification of STC shall be obtained within a period of three years. 15. However, the said proviso came to be substituted w.e.f. 30.5.2011, which reads as under: “Provided that the widows/divorced women who have been given appointment on the post of Teacher or Senior Teacher after relaxing the required qualification of B.S.TC. Or B.Ed. Shall be regularized from the date they acquire the required qualification of B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. As the case may be. They shall also be eligible for grant of study leave for acquiring the qualification of B.S.T.C. or B.Ed.” 16. A perusal of the above substituted proviso shows that now the provision has been made that those who have been given appointment after relaxing the required qualification of STC shall be regularized from the date they acquire the required qualification of STC. 17. A perusal of the above substituted proviso shows that now the provision has been made that those who have been given appointment after relaxing the required qualification of STC shall be regularized from the date they acquire the required qualification of STC. 17. The contrast between the proviso as it existed prior to its substitution on 30.5.2011 is obvious, wherein, there was no restriction regarding the regularization of services of those appointed by granting relaxation in the required qualification earlier, which was modified by introducing the provision of regularization from the date of acquisition of required qualification. 18. In the absence of requirement for the purpose of regularization of services from the specific date prior to 30.5.2011, the petitioner was accorded regular pay scale by order dated 3.2.2010, after she acquired the required qualification on 5.7.2009. The proviso, which was introduced in the year 2011 could not be made applicable to the petitioner, who had already been granted the benefit of confirmation w.e.f. 10.10.2007 by order dated 3.2.2010. 19. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the proviso in question is clarificatory only cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the clarification can only be introduced pertaining to existing provision, whereas, in the present case the requirement of regularization of services from the date of acquisition of required qualification has been introduced for the first time and, therefore, it cannot be said to be clarificatory only. 20. Further, once the respondents have already passed the order dated 3.2.2010 based on the existing provision i.e. prior to 2011 when the amendment was introduced, there was no reason for the respondents to make changes in the said order that also without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 21. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 8.7.2021 (Annex.9) changing the date of petitioner’s regular appointment to 5.7.2009 and date of confirmation as 5.7.2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to modify the order dated 6.3.2019 (Annex.7) by according the benefit of first selection grade (ACP) w.e.f. from the initial date of appointment i.e. 10.10.2005. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits on account of change of date of her entitlement of ACP. 22. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks.