S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was given a fixed term appointments and such appointments come to an end by afflux of time on expiry of the period for which it has been given. For termination of such appointments, even the notice is not required to be given nor the order is required to be passed. Reference in this respect may have to the decision of this Court given in the case of Bhanmati Tapubhai Mulia vs. State of gujarat, reported in 1995 (2) GLH 228 . ( 3 ) THE petitioner, during the period of his temporary services, has been arrested in connection with the offence committed by him alongwith other persons, punishable under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the respondents have, taking it to be a case of a permanent employee, misled themselves and the petitioner, on his arrest in connection with criminal case, has been placed under suspension. In a case where the petitioner was given only fixed term temporary appointments, and if his conduct led to his arrest in a criminal case for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. , then what for he has been placed under suspension and instead of doing so his term of temporary appointment should not have been extended. The petitioner wanted to take benefit of the aforesaid error comitted by respondents and as such he filed this petitioner praying therein for subsistence allowance in accordance with Rule 51 of the Bombay- civil Service Rules. It is not in dispute that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC. and the appeal filed by him against his conviction has also been dismissed by this Court. In view of this fact, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter and this petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. .