( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - (a)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the interim injunction dated 23. 12. 94 (Annexure 3) issued by the respondent no. 2 and judgment and order dated 5. 5. 95 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent no. 1. (b)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the plaint of Original Suit No. 1712 of 1994 (Annexure 1) pending in the court of Civil Judge, Kanpur City. (c)Issue any other and further writ, order or direction which may be deemed to be fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d)Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Sri Tek Chandra Agrawal, respondent no. 3, filed Suit No. 1712 of 1994 for declaration of his correct date of birth and for permanent injunction to the effect that he may not be removed from service before he attains the age of superannuation computed from his correct date of birth. He was working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department. He alleged that his date of birth in his High School Certificate is wrongly mentioned as 1. 1. 1937 instead of 1. 1. 1938. The plaintiff-respondent had also moved an application for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from retiring him from service on the basis of his date of birth as 1. 1. 1937. The defendant-petitioner sought time to file objection to the aforesaid ad-interim injunction application of the plaintiff-respondent. ( 3 ) THE trial court vide order dated 23. 12. 1994 granted time to the defendant-petitioner for filing objection to the ad-interim injunction application (5-C-2) till 9. 1. 1995 and directed the parties to maintain status quo till then. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 23. 12. 1994 the defendant-petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1995 before the District Judge. ( 4 ) THE District Judge framed following issues for determination of the dispute: - 1. Whether the appeal is not maintainable in view of specific provision of Order 39 Rule 4 of C. P. C. ? 2. 12. 1994 the defendant-petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1995 before the District Judge. ( 4 ) THE District Judge framed following issues for determination of the dispute: - 1. Whether the appeal is not maintainable in view of specific provision of Order 39 Rule 4 of C. P. C. ? 2. Whether the suit itself is not maintainable as it is barred by provision of Section 6 of U. P. Services Tribunal Act? 3. Whether the suit is barred by Sections 79 and 80 of C. P. C. 4. To what relief, if any, is the defendant-appellant entitled? After deciding all the four issues the lower appellate court vide impugned order dated 5. 5. 1995 held: -"in my considered opinion, the learned Civil Judge had not committed any illegality of any kind while passing the order of status-quo. There was no other option left to the learned Civil Judge, as according to the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent was due to retire on 31. 12. 1994. Had he not passed the impugned order, the plaintiff would have been retired on the basis of alleged incorrect date of his birth mentioned in his High School Certificate i. e. 1. 1. 1937 instead of with reference to his alleged correct date of birth i. e. 1. 7. 1938. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Civil Judge was right in passing the order for maintaining the status-quo by the parties. Hence the appellant is not entitled to get any relief in this appeal as no interference with the interim order for maintaining status-quo is called for. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff-respondent. " ( 5 ) DISMISSING the appeal with costs to the plaintiff-respondent the lower appellate court confirmed the order of the Civil Judge dated 23. 12. 1994 and further ordered that the parties shall maintain the status-quo till final disposal of the ad-interim injunction application (5-C-2) by the Civil Judge on merits. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit it has been stated that in the first School Leaving Certificate of the respondent which was in Urdu his date of birth was recorded as 1. 7. 1938 which was wrongly read and recorded by the Principal of the College as 1. 1. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit it has been stated that in the first School Leaving Certificate of the respondent which was in Urdu his date of birth was recorded as 1. 7. 1938 which was wrongly read and recorded by the Principal of the College as 1. 1. 1937 in the Scholars Register on the basis of which the date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 1. 1. 1937 in the High School Certificate of the respondent. ( 7 ) IT appears from the record that the respondent Sri Tek Chandra Agrawal was about 59 years of age at the time of filing of the instant writ petition in 1995. He must have now been superannuated from service, hence the question of determination of his correct date of birth must have been decided by now in the ad-interim injunction application (5-C-2 ). ( 8 ) FROM the judgment passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1995 impugned to this writ petition it appears that Sri Tek Chandra Agrawal in Suit No. 1712 of 1994 filed by him had prayed for declaration of his correct date of birth and for permanent injunction to the effect that he may not be removed from service before he attains the age of superannuation computed from his correct date of birth. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. .