JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the District Panchayat Teachers Appellate Tribunal, Siwan. Petitioner had applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher. In the application, she had shown herself to be the resident of Siwan. After following due selection process, she was recruited and appointed as Panchayat Teacher. Upon her appointment, the Block Development Officer (BDO) and another private respondent complained to the Appellate Tribunal that in fact petitioner was not permanent resident of Siwan and showing herself wrongly to be the resident of Bihar has taken appointment. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention and ordered for removal of petitioner simpliciter. A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Superintendent of Education whereby the only thing he has submitted is that the appointment is in contravention of Rule 8(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. The Rule aforesaid requires the Panchayat Teacher to be a citizen of India and a resident of Bihar. 2. Having heard the parties, with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. Having perused the order impugned, I am unable to uphold its validity. Without going into the constitutional issue whether service under the State can be reserved only for residents of the State, I find that the order cannot be sustained on facts. On perusal of the order, it is clear that petitioners father has been posted in Bihar and in particular at Siwan for a very long time and resides there. He is in Central Government service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did her schooling from Bihar, her intermediate and college education all from Bihar. She is registered as a voter from Siwan. Then to say that as her fathers ancestral house is at Deoria in U.P. and, as such, she would be deemed to be permanent resident of U.P. and not of Bihar, is stretching things a bit too far which is not permissible in law. The statute does not require or does not talk about permanent residence. It simply talks of resident of Bihar. On the facts found aforesaid, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that petitioner is not resident of Bihar. The statute does not require or does not talk about permanent residence. It simply talks of resident of Bihar. On the facts found aforesaid, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that petitioner is not resident of Bihar. It would be another matter if petitioner having got married to a non-Bihari moves out of Bihar then obviously she cannot continue as a Panchayat Teacher because she is not there but so long as she remains in Bihar, her services cannot be terminated much less on this whimsical ground. 4. In that view of the matter, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, Siwan is set aside. It will be deemed that the petitioner has continued in service with all consequential benefits uninterrupted.