Order : (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “1. By an appropriate direction the respondent be directed to release all service benefits including seniority, selection scale and all other benefits as has been granted to her juniors. 2. By an appropriate directions, order respondent be directed in taking into consideration the first date of appointment as 13-1-1996 and the release of payment and arrears to the petitioner. The order dated 5-7-2011 and 17-11-2016 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. 3. By an appropriate direction the recovery made by the Respondent by amending the date of initial appointment arbitrarily may be directed to refund make to the petitioner that 24 percent interest. 4. By an appropriate writ petition order the seniority given to the petitioner as has been given during the date of initial appointment for her juniors named in above para. 5. Any other appropriate relief which is Hon’ble Court deemed for a period may be given in grant in favour of the petition.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to treat her date of appointment as 13.01.1996 instead of 19.01.1997. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widow lady and she participated in the process for selection for appointment on the post of Teacher-Gr.III under the quota prescribed for Widow/Divorced Females under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1971”). Learned counsel submits that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was given appointment on 13.01.1996 while she was pursuing her B.Ed. course thereafter. She qualified the said examination on 04.06.1996. Learned counsel submits that, without any basis, the respondents have treated the initial date of appointment of the petitioner as 19.01.1997. Learned counsel submits that with no stretch of imagination, it can be believed that the appointment was given to her in the month of January, 1997 rather appointment was given to her on 13.01.1996. Learned counsel submits that in the reply, the case of the respondents is that certain amendments were brought under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 wherein the provision was inserted for regularization of service of such like candidates from the date of acquisition of required qualification. Learned counsel submits that in the reply, the case of the respondents is that certain amendments were brought under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 wherein the provision was inserted for regularization of service of such like candidates from the date of acquisition of required qualification. Learned counsel submits that the amendment brought under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 cannot be applied with its retrospective effect as no such provision was there prior to the amendment when the appointment was granted to the petitioner and when the petitioner acquired the required qualification. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get all service benefits from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 13.01.1996. Learned counsel submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seema Garg Versus State of Rajasthan & others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4091/2004 . Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner i.e. on 13.01.1996 the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite qualification for getting appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner acquired the said qualification in the month of June, 1996, hence under these circumstances, her date of appointment was treated as 19.01.1997. Learned counsel submits that in order to make clarity in the Rules of 1971, amendment was brought under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971, which specifically lays down that service of such like candidates would be regularised from the date of acquisition of the requisite qualification. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, no illegality has been caused by the respondents by passing the impugned order and treating the initial date of appointment as 19.01.1997. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that in pursuance of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971, the petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III under the quota fixed/prescribed for widow/divorced females. This fact is not in dispute that at the time of her appointment on 13.01.1996, she was not in possession of the required educational qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III but this fact is also not in dispute at the relevant time she was pursuing/undergoing the study/course of B.Ed. and she has completed the same in the month of June, 1996 and, thereafter, she was awarded with the degree of B.Ed. 7. Now the question remains for consideration of this Court is whether the respondents can change the date of appointment of the petitioner as 19.01.1997 simply on the basis that the required qualification was acquired by the petitioner after her appointment. 8. Perusal of Rule 11 of Rules of 1971 indicates that no such rider was there for treating the services of such like candidates as regularized with effect from the date when the required qualification has been acquired. Prior to amendment, the Rules were silent in this regard and amendment was made at a later stage in the year 2011 and for the first time a rider was inserted in the Rules by amending Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 which lays down as under:- “Amendment of Rule 11.- The existing proviso to rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, shall be substituted by the following, namely:- “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.T.C. 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.” 9. It is a settled proposition of law that any Rule or provision in any Rules or Act would have its prospective effect not retrospective effect. They shall also be eligible for grant of study leave for acquiring the qualification of B.S.T.C. or B.Ed.” 9. It is a settled proposition of law that any Rule or provision in any Rules or Act would have its prospective effect not retrospective effect. Hence, the amendment made in the Rule has no retrospective effect in the case of the petitioner. 10. The controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest in the case of Seema Garg (supra) wherein co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken a following view:- “5. The relaxation of the qualification of B.Ed. was to enable to the petitioners to get employment while giving them opportunity to complete the qualification and the appointment accordingly would stand regularized after acquiring decree of B.Ed. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners continued in service from the year 1997/1996 to 2003 but even then the respondents were denying them the benefits arising out of their regular service from 1997/1996 to 2003 on the pretext that since they could not qualify within the stipulated time, the benefit of annual grade increments, seniority, selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service for all purposes shall be given w.e.f. the year 2003 when they completed their B.Ed. Degree Course. 7. The respondents filed a reply and took a stand that they were justified in giving the benefits after the petitioner acquired the necessary qualification as stipulated in Rule 11. Counsel for the respondents strongly refuted the case of the petitioners by saying that the benefits could not have been granted to the petitioners as the petitioners were not having the minimum qualifications and could not have therefore, enjoyed the benefits of service until the minimum qualification was attained by them. Counsel for the respondents stated that relaxation was an enabling provision only for the purpose of giving a chance to the petitioners and the same cannot be claimed as a right until the necessary qualification of B.Ed, was attained. Counsel for the respondents also stated that now giving any benefit for the services prior to 2003, would be hit by the case law in the case of State of Rajasthan & ors Vs. Counsel for the respondents also stated that now giving any benefit for the services prior to 2003, would be hit by the case law in the case of State of Rajasthan & ors Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (Civil Appeal No.3620/2009), decided on 08/05/2009 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has strongly deprecated counting of any adhoc services for the purpose of granting of any future benefits. 8. Counsel for the petitioners stated that the condition of relaxation was not connected to continuity, confirmation and permanent status of the substantive appointment gained by the petitioners Counsel for the petitioner also distinguished the case of State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) on account of the fact that here in this case there was no past adhoc service and on the other hand, the appointment was on substantive basis from the initial date of appointment. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case law in the case of Smt. Lalita Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.1460/2010), decided on 18/04/2012 in which this Court has held the petitioner to be entitled for only annual grade increments and all other relief which was dependent on the period prescribed for clearing the eligibility. Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the case law in the case of Alka Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.10559/2010), decided on 06/04/2015 and Smt. Chandrakanta Nuwal Vs. State of Raj. & ors . (SB Civil Writ Petition No.13531/2008), decided on 23/03/2011 whereby it was held that the petitioner was entitled only for annual grade increments even she had not completed the qualification of B.Ed. within a period of three years from the date of appointment. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case law in the case of Smt. Durga Sharma Vs. State & ors. (SB civil Writ Petition No.11313/2009), decided on 18/12/2008 where it was held by this Court as follows:- "From reading of the proviso above, it is clear that it nowhere restricts a widow or a divorced lady from getting study leave if she do not acquire required qualification within a period of three years. The grant of study leave is not at all dependent to the period prescribed for acquiring the eligibility. The grant of study leave is not at all dependent to the period prescribed for acquiring the eligibility. As such I do not find any just and valid reason to deny study leave and other consequential benefits to the petitioners." 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the precedent law laid down by this Court in the cases (supra), this Court is of the opinion that both these writ petitions deserve to be allowed as the appointment of the petitioners is under Rule ii of the Rules of 1971 on the post of Teacher Gr.IJ.1 as widow/divorcee women which is dependent and separate from the condition of acquiring the necessary qualification stipulated under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971. Once acquiring of the qualification was independent of the services being rendered by the petitioners, which remained continuous from 1997/1996 to 2003, then the benefits accrued out of the services from the period of 1997/1996 were to be granted to the petitioners. The respondents are therefore, directed to count services of the petitioners from 20.03.1997/ 06.02.1996 respectively for all consequential benefits including annual grade increments, selection grade benefits etc.. The compliance be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 11. Since the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest in the case of Seema Garg (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the service of the petitioner from the initial date of her appointment i.e. 13.01.1996 for grant of all service benefits to the petitioner. Consequences to follow. 13. All pending applications (if any) stand disposed of.