ORDER : J.S. Verma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This common judgment disposes of both these appeals which involve a common question for decision. The common question relates to the construction of a provision of the Employees' Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1962. The relevant provision is a proviso which reads as under: "Provided further that inter se seniority of the successful candidates so appointed from the same examination, whether from amongst the successful employees of the Headquarters Office or the Regional Offices shall be determined according to the merit on the basis of the marks obtained." (emphasis supplied) 3. The above quoted proviso deals with the fixation of inter se seniority of the successful candidates appointed by promotion on passing the prescribed examination. A plain construction of this proviso indicates that the inter se seniority of the successful candidates so appointed from the same examination is to be determined "according to the merit on the basis of the marks obtained". Obviously, the fixation of seniority of the successful candidates who are appointed after passing the same examination is based on their inter se rank arranged in the order of merit according to the marks obtained by them in the examination. The Rule clearly provides for fixation of seniority on the basis of merit determined in the same examination or in other words, the comparative merit of the promotees appointed in this manner. The plain language of the above proviso excludes the consideration of seniority in the feeder cadre except where the merit of the two candidates is equal on account of both having obtained the same marks. This is the inescapable conclusion from the plain language of the above proviso. 4. In the impugned judgments of the Tribunal, it has been clearly said that the above proviso is not struck down as invalid. That being so, the proviso has to be construed according to its plain and unambiguous language as indicated above. The construction made of the proviso by the Tribunal being different, it cannot be upheld. 5. Consequently, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments of the Tribunal are set aside. 6. No costs. Appeals allowed.