Central Information Commission
Mrashok Kumar vs Ministry Of Defence on 3 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/LS/C/2012/000660-AB
Ashok Kumar, Kanpur ....Appellant
Vs.
PIO Ordnance Works Board, Kolkata.. ...Respondent
Dates
• RTI Application =10.01.2012
• CPIO's response = 10.02.2012
• First Appeal = 12.03.2012
• FAA's response = N.A.
• Second Appeal = 17.04.2012
• Date of decision = 03.05.2016
• Date of hearing = 03.05.2016
Facts:
The appellant had sought certain information regarding recruitment in Apprentice Training Programme.
1. To what extent does the respondent organisation follow the Apprentices Act in training and Placement in jobs?
2. Whether the factory comes under Army or under some other organisation?
3. Under which Rule does the respondent organisation employ candidates without any prior training? Prior to 2007, the respondent organisation used to recruit apprentices trained by them but this system was discontinued after 2007. Under which Rule has the respondent organisation stopped this policy of recruiting apprentices trained by them.
4. Who is responsible for Placement of those apprentices who have been trained by the respondent organisation but are unemployed after training.
5. What is the percentage of preference given to the apprentices who have passed out of the training school of the respondent organisation, in the recruitment in the organisation.
6. Is there any Rule under which the current percentage of freshers to ITI pass outs in recruitment which is of the order of 50:50 can be modified to 70:30.
Decision:
On the appointed date and time, Shri Subir Kumar Ganguly, Asstt. Jr. Works Manager, Ordnance Factory Board for the respondent was present. The appellant was not present.
The CPIO stated that they had already sent the reply on 10th Feb, 2012 after receipt of RTI application on 10th January, 2012. Hence a full and final reply was sent within 30 days. The case may be closed since the reply was filed in time. On perusal of records, it is seen that the copy of reply is not there. The CPIO promised to send a copy of the same. A copy of the reply sent by the respondent to the Appellant dated 10.2.12 has since been received by the Commission, which is on record. As the full & final reply was furnished to the Appellant within the time prescribed under the RTI Act, the case is disposed of.
(Amitava Bhattacharyya) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U.C. Joshi) Dy. Secretary