ORDER : (L.S. Jamir, C.J(Acting)) Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 23 and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Standing Counsel, School Education Department, for the opposite party Nos. 24 to 25. 2. It is the case of the applicants that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 23 as writ petitioners has filed WP(C) No. 1392/2025 challenging the provision under Rule 10 and Schedule- III of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018 which provides that Praveen/Ratna degree is equivalent to Bachelor of Arts having Hindi as one of the subjects or Major in (Hindi). In the said writ petition the opposite party Nos. 1 to 23 has also challenged the Advertisement No. E-392562/3 dated 27.12.2023 for filling up of posts of Graduate Teacher (Hindi) of different provincialised secondary schools under the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam. 3. It is the further case of the applicants that they have completed the Praveen/Ratna degree and they are eligible to apply and get appointment for Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi), as per the Advertisement dated 27.12.2023 they have made their applications and they appeared in the selection process for the TET cum Recruitment Test which was held on 19.01.2025 in respect of the Graduate Teacher (Hindi). However, the result of the said examination has not been declared by the Official respondents due to the pendency of WP(C) No. 1392/2025. It is therefore, the case of the applicants that if they are not allowed to be impleaded as party respondents in WP(C) No. 1392/2025, the applicants would be seriously prejudiced in the event any Order is passed by this Court without hearing them. 5. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 23/writ petitioners, however submits that the applicants are not necessary parties inasmuch as the petitioners have only challenged the policy of the Government. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as the applicants have already participated in the recruitment process, it would be in the interest of justice to implead the applicants as party respondent Nos. 3 to 57 in WP(C) No. 1392/2025. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for impleadment is allowed. 8. I.A. stands disposed of.