- (1.) HEARD Sri Sanchit S. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, by which the claim petition preferred by respondent no.1 was finally disposed of by observing that the date of birth of the petitioner which is recorded in the Service Book will be treated as final has approached this Court. It is admitted case of the parties that the date of birth of respondent no.1 is recorded as 6.1.1950 in the service record. The petitioner issued the orders dated 22.8.2006 and 8.5.2006 treating the date of birth of the respondent no.1 as 6.1.1949 on the basis of the medical certificate dated 6.1.1974. In the medical certificate the Chief Medical Officer has assessed the age of respondent no.1 as about 25 years. The Tribunal while disposing of the writ petition has held that the date of birth which is mentioned in the Service Book of respondent no.1 will be final and conclusive. We are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed.;