Honble KEJRIWAL, J. – Vide order dated 21.5.1994, marked Annexure 1, the petitioner was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Attrocities) Court. Lateron the petitioner vide order dated 17.6.1995, marked Annexure 2, was also appointed Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. for the cases which were transferred to the said court. Vide order dated 5.8.1995, his services were terminated. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition on the ground that the same is arbitrary, unjustified and is contrary to the principles of natural justice. (2). The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Law & Judicial Department Manual, 1952 (for short the `Rules), peti- tioner should have been given one months Notice before termination of his service. As the respondents did not serve a Notice of one month before terminating his services, hence the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Manak Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (1), and another judgment of Honble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors. (2). The judgment reported in Manak Chands case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the services of Manak Chand were terminated before the term for which he was appointed without serving any Notice. (3). The Judgment of the Apex Court is also not relevant to the facts of the pre- sent case. In that case the petitioner was appointed under the Indian Police Service Rules, on 4.7.1969, on probation. After the period of probation, according to rules, he stood automatically confirmed. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the discharge of the petitioner from service vide order dated 9.4.1974, was not proper. (4). In the present case, the petitioner was appointed only for a period of six months vide order dated 21.5.1994. The period was never extended. He continued without extension of time. Rule 15 of the Rules reads as under : ``15 Term of Office :- A Public Prosecutor shall be appointed for a pe- riod of three years, including the period of his probation, and may be re-appointed for further periods not exceeding three years at a time. The period was never extended. He continued without extension of time. Rule 15 of the Rules reads as under : ``15 Term of Office :- A Public Prosecutor shall be appointed for a pe- riod of three years, including the period of his probation, and may be re-appointed for further periods not exceeding three years at a time. Ordinarily no person will be appointed a Public Prosecutor after he attains the age of 60 years or continued in that office after he attains that age. Notwithstanding the expiry of the period, of his term of appointment, a Public Prosecutor shall continue as such until he is re-appointed or his successor is appointed. (5). This rule provides that after the expiry of period of the term of appointment, a Public Prosecutor shall continue as such until he is re-appointed or his successor is appointed. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was re-appointed. The petitioner has not said a single word in his writ petition that the Government has not appointed his successor. Service of Notice of one month is essential only when the services of an appointed Public Prosecutor are terminated before the term for which he was appointed. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.