JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. Heard Mr R Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr A K Hannan, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Mr I Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. By this application filed by the applicant, the applicant has prayed for recalling of the order dated 18th of December, 2024, passed in WP(C) No. 3573 of 2024, by which the Agence Francaaise De Development (AFD), French Development Agency, was made a party respondent by impleading the same by the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner in the connected writ petition was appointed as Senior Procurement Specialist in the Assam Project on Forest and Biodiversity Conservation (APFBC Phase-II) vide order dated 09.06.2020. By the said order, it is reflected that an offer was made to the applicant to be appointed in the said capacity and an acceptance was called for within a period of 3 (three) days. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner was, in fact, appointed as the Senior Procurement Specialist. 3.1 In pursuance thereof, a contract agreement was entered into between the Project Director, Project Management Unit, Assam, and the petitioner on 21st of July, 2020, providing conditions of service in the agreement. 4. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that during the course of employment, some allegations were made against the petitioner and an FIR was lodged and vide order dated 01.06.2024, the Project Director of APFBC Phase-II had communicated to the petitioner that his services were no longer required in the said project and he was directed to hand over all the files as well as soft copies of all records related to the project and it was also communicated that in case, his service is required, he should make himself available to the said society. The writ petition was filed challenging the said order of relieving him from service by making the concerned official of the Forest Department as party respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for impleading the applicant as party respondent No. 4, which was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2024, as stated above. 5. The writ petition was filed challenging the said order of relieving him from service by making the concerned official of the Forest Department as party respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for impleading the applicant as party respondent No. 4, which was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2024, as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the appointment of the petitioner was initially for a period of 2 (two) years, as could be seen in the appointment order and, thereafter, his services were extended by another 2 (two) years and that his appointment was purely contractual in nature. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the adjudication of the instant case, inasmuch, as, the applicant is simply the funding agency to the project. He further stated that the applicant has not only funded the instant project, but is also involved in funding many other projects all over the country. The applicant, in the instant case, has funded the project for conservation of wildlife and as such, they are not required to remain a party in the instant proceeding. 7. To substantiate his argument, he relied on a judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in Union of India -Vs-Rampal Singh & Others ; wherein it was held that a funding agency in which case it was the Union of India, is not required to be impleaded as a party respondent since no relief is sought for against the same. In the said case, mpleading Union of India as a party respondent was considered to be incorrect since no direction can be issued against the same and the said impleadment was struck off. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, i.e., the petitioner submitted that the project under which the petitioner was appointed as the Senior Procurement Specialist was funded by the applicant and that in the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Forest Department, it was stated in the very first line of the agreement itself that the project was funded by the applicant. He placed reliance on the three judgments, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are quoted as under:- i) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal -vs- Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others ; reported in (1992) AIR (SCW) 846 ii) Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. -vs- Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Others ; reported in (2010) AIR (SCW) 4222 . iii) Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia -vs- Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar; reported in (1963) AIR (SC) 786 . By relying on the said judgments, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the applicant is the necessary party in proper adjudication of the case. 9. I have heard the learned counsel and I have gone through the records. 10. It is seen that the impleading application was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.12.2024, on the ground that the proposed respondent had partnered with the State of Assam and the Assam Forest Department for the purpose of Forest Management and biodiversity conservation and that the applicant is providing the fund for the Assam Project. On these grounds, the learned Court held that the applicant is a necessary party and after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. the petitioner and on consideration of the cause shown, the applicant was impleaded as party respondent. 11. It is seen that the said order attained finality in the year 2024 itself and the challenge to the same should have been by way of an appropriate application by the aggrieved party. However, the applicant had filed an interlocutory application with the prayer for recalling the order dated 18.12.2024 and to remove/delete the name of the applicant from the array of the respondents and the same is listed before this Court, which according to this Bench is not maintainable. The applicant is, as such, directed to file an appropriate application before the appropriate Court. 12. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.