An Interlocutory Application to Recall an Impleadment Order is Subject to Challenge Before the Appropriate Dismissive Forum.

The applicant (AFD) is an international funding agency that provides financial support for the Assam Project on Forest and Biodiversity Conservation (APFBC Phase-II).

The respondent (original petitioner) was appointed as a Senior Procurement Specialist for this project on a contractual basis.

Following allegations and an FIR, the Project Director relieved the respondent from service on 01.06.2024.

The respondent challenged this termination via WP(C) No. 3573 of 2024 and successfully moved an impleadment application on 18.12.2024 to add AFD as a respondent, which the Court allowed on the grounds that AFD is the funding partner.

The applicant subsequently filed this Interlocutory Application (IA) to recall the impleadment order and delete its name from the proceedings.

1. Whether a funding agency (AFD) is a necessary or proper party in a service dispute between a contractual employee and the state project authorities.

2. Whether an Interlocutory Application to recall a prior impleadment order, which has attained finality, is the appropriate legal remedy before the current Bench.

The Court considered the distinction between "necessary" and "proper" parties in adjudication.

Union of India v. Rampal Singh & Others (Delhi High Court), which held that a funding agency is not a necessary party if no specific relief is sought against it.

Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre, and Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, which define necessary parties as those whose presence is indispensable for the effective adjudication of the controversy.

The applicant argued that its role is limited to funding conservation projects and it has no involvement in administrative or employment disputes, thus making it neither a necessary nor a proper party.

The respondent countered that since the very first line of the employment agreement identifies the project as AFD-funded, the agency's presence is required for proper adjudication.

The Court observed that the impleadment order was passed by a Single Judge on 18.12.2024 and had attained finality.

The Court reasoned that an Interlocutory Application for "recalling" such an order is not the appropriate procedural vehicle before the present Bench.

The Court directed the applicant to file an "appropriate application" (suggesting a review or appeal) before the "appropriate Court" if they wish to challenge the 2024 order. The Interlocutory Application was disposed of without granting the relief of deleting the applicant from the array of respondents.