Central Information Commission
Lala Ram Mahawar vs Ministry Of Skill Development & ... on 6 January, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/639234 &
CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/639428
Lal Ram Mahawar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1.CPIO
M/o Skill Development &
Entrepreneurship, Directorate
General of Training, Employment
Exchange Building, I.A.R.I.Campus,
Pusa, New Delhi-110012
.... ितवादीगण /Respondents
2.CPIO
M/o Skill Development &
Entrepreneurship, 3rd Floor, Kaushal
Bhawan, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-
110023
Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026
Date of Decision : 05.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common, subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being disposed
of through a common order.
1. CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/639234
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.06.2024
CPIO replied on : Not Replied
First appeal filed on : 20.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.08.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 02.09.2024
Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Usha Madam forwarded my complaint to V.S.Arvind, Deputy Secretary, Apprenticeship Section on 5th June 2024 V.S. Arvind, Deputy Secretary, Apprenticeship Section please send a copy of what you have done regarding my complaint".
2. No reply has been furnished by the CPIO to the Appellant within stipulated time frame.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.08.2024, held as under:
"Reply has been given to the Vigilance Section on 21st June 2024, Necessary information will be provided by Vigilance Section. Reply has also been provided by CPIO".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2. CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/639428 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.07.2024 CPIO replied on : Not Replied First appeal filed on : 13.08.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 26.08.2024 2nd Appeal dated : 03.09.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
(i) I was on apprenticeship training at Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) Western Region Mumbai from 5th January 2018 to 4th January 2019.
However, during this period, no contract was generated within the stipulated timeframe by IOCL, RDAT, DGT, or MSDE Page 2 of 8
(ii) According to the Apprentice Portal report, my offline contract was created on March 12, 2018, and its contract no. is EL-01/644707037374. However, when the hearing took place in C.I.C., DGT and RDAT claimed that my offline contract was generate on 04-02-2019, and the contract no. is E-01/644707037374. Whereas IOCL has said in CIC that my contract form was filled out on 29-04- 2019 and submitted to RDAT Mumbai on April 29, 2019. Even then if my contract was generated, it would have been generated after 29 April 2019. Then how is it possible that RDAT and DGT created my contract before that? IOCL phone called me on 22-04-2019 and provided me with the contract no (Annexure 1). They said that this contract number had been provided to us by RDAT Mumbai. When I asked IOCL to provide me with a copy of the contract, 1OCL told me that you may get a copy of the contract from RDAT Mumbai. Then, when I went to the RDAT Mumbai office to get a copy of the contract, they told me to get a copy from IOCL. And similarly, till May 2020, no one gave me a copy of the contract, the contract that was generated from the above matter was a completely fake contract, and the AITT under ATS Exam was written from this contract, However, the fact is that an Apprenticeship contract is typically executed only once. Yet, in my case, two contracts with different contract no were generated on different dates, which suggests collusion and fraudulent activities by Sandeep Kalia and Harinath Babu. They are working together to deceive and cheat. Furthermore, Sandeep Kalia is boldly providing false testimony in front of the CIC Commissioner during the hearing, misleading both the Commission and me. Hence, my contract, my results and examination, and my Apprenticeship should be cancelled.
(iii). If I had an online contract in my name, there would have been online contract approval by RDAT Directorate General of Training (DGT Director Shri Ishwar Singh (Apprenticeship Training) replied in First Appeal that there is no online contract generated with my Apprentic Registration No. It is clear that my contract has not been completed by RDAT. My Apprentice Registration No. is A021803066, and I have no online contract (Annexure 2). Then, how can I write AITT under the ATS Exam and get the result from MSDE? It is clear that IOCL and RDA Mumbai Director Shri Harinath Babu are doing fake contracts, illegal work, criminal offences, and making fake candidates to write AIT under the ATS Exam. Kindly cancel my AITT under the ATS result as soon as possible and cancel my Apprenticeship contract number."
6. No reply has been furnished by the CPIO to the Appellant.
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.08.2024, held as under:
"CPIO has replied that matter has been transferred to DGT for providing information".Page 3 of 8
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, Under Secretary, Shri Saurabh Singh, ASO, Shri Sunil Kumar, Under Secretary and Shri Rajeev Kumar Verma, ASO, attended the hearing.
9. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
10. The Respondent submitted that their office has received the RTI Application dated 19.06.2024, wherein the Appellant has sought following information:
""Usha Madam forwarded my complaint to V.S.Arvind, Deputy Secretary, Apprenticeship Section on 5th June 2024 V.S. Arvind, Deputy Secretary, Apprenticeship Section please send a copy of what you have done regarding my complaint".
11. He added that the Appellant in the RTI Application was seeking action taken on his complaint, the CPIO through online mode on 24.07.2024, informed the Appellant that the averred complaint was transferred to Apprenticeship Division on 5th June 2024 and reply has been given to the Vigilance Section on 21st June 2024 and necessary information will be provided by Vigilance section.
12. He apprised the Bench of the fact that the Appellant has totally misconceived the provisions of the Apprentice Act 1961 and now he is seeking regular employment in IOCL in lieu of his apprenticeship period. He submitted that the Appellant is trying to find solution to his grievance by filing various RTI Applications and Appeals on the same subject matter and 15 Second Appeals have already been heard and disposed of by the previous Bench of the Commission.
13. A written submission has been received from Ms. Monika Goswami, CPIO-
cum-SO, vide letter dated 31.12.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
Page 4 of 8"With reference to the Notice of Hearing under File No.CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/639428 dated 09.12.2025, following is submitted:
I. RTI Application dated 19.06.2024:
The Appellant Shri Lala Ram Mahawar had filed an online RTI Application on 19/06/2024 vide No. MSDES/R/E/24/00173 seeking status of his complaint stated to be forwarded by DGT (Vigilance) to Apprenticeship Division on 05.06.2024.
Reply given by the then CPIO Ms. Arpana Singh, Assistant Director (MSDE) on 24.07.2024:
"The complaint was transferred to Apprenticeship Division on 5th June, 2024 and reply has been given to the Vigilance Section on 21 June, 2024. Necessary information will be provided by the Vigilance Section." -(Annexure-I). II. First Appeal dated 13.08.2024:
The Appellant Shri Lala Ram Mahawar had filed First Appeal No. MSDES/A/E/24/00029 dated 13.08.2024 stating that there is "no response within the time limit".
Reply by the First Appellate Authority (26.08.2024):
"CPIO has replied that matter has been transferred to DGT for providing information."-Annexure-II Now the appellant has made a second appeal before the CIC stating that his RTI Application has been replied after 35 days of his making RTI Application and seeking disposal of his complaint with regard to offline contract created on Apprentice Portal. In this context, it is submitted here that the RTI Application has been received on 21.06.2024 and has been replied on 24.07.2024, there is a delay of 04 days of stipulated time under the RTI Act, 2025. It is humbly submitted that the delay of 04 days of furnishing information may kindly be condoned.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the communication as mentioned in the RTI Application was the part of internal communication on e-file of the DGT(Vigilance), between the DGT (Vigilance) Department and Apprenticeship Division, MSDE in a complaint made by the RTI Appellant. The further course of action lies with the DGT (Vigilance).
3. Besides a reference is invited to CIC decision dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure-III) in the series of RTI Applications and Appeals made by the appellant with a conclusion that the applicant has filed numerous RTIs and RTI Appeals to pressurize the Public Authority to offer him regular employment rather than actual interest in getting the information.
4. The undersigned CPIO is on approved leave on the date of CIC hearing (05.01.2026 at 11:30 AM), hence, Shri Rajeev Kumar, Under Secretary, Page 5 of 8 Apprentice Division has been deputed to attend the hearing. Shri Saurabh Singh, ASO and APIO, Apprentice Division will also attend the hearing.
5. This issues with the approval of competent authority."
14. A written submission has been received from Shri Sunil Kumar, Under Secretary (Vigilance Section), vide letter dated 02.01.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"2. In this regard, it is submitted that no RTI application dated 19.06.2025 from Shri Lala Ram Mahawar was received in this office (DGT). The said RTI application was received and processed by the NAPS Division, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (MSDE) and was disposed of by the then CPIO, NAPS Division on 24.07.2025. Subsequently, the First Appeal dated 13.08.2025 was also disposed of by the Appellate Authority, NAPS on 26.08.2025.
3. It is mentioned that the information sought by the applicant vide the RTI ibid pertained to the status of complaints forwarded by DGT to the NAPS Division, MSDE, which were originally received through the CVC Portal. The applicant was duly informed that the complaints were examined and, based on the facts of the case and available records, a reply had already been issued vide letter dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure-I).
4. It is further submitted that the applicant has been repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and grievances on the same subject matter, including allegations relating to registration of offline Model Contracts of Apprenticeship Training. Therefore, the applicant was advised vide letter dated 15.07.2025(Annexure-II) to approach the concerned Apprentice Division.
5. It is also to state here that the applicant had filed a PIL dated 12.08.2021 in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side). Accordingly, Director, NAPS Division, MSDE vide email dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-III) has intimated to the applicant that since the matter is sub -judiced before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side) further action on the matter is subject to the outcome of the said proceedings. The said court case is still pending in Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Annexure-IV)."
Decision in CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/639234:
15. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant by the Respondent vide letter dated 24.07.2024 and 26.08.2024. Moreover, the Page 6 of 8 Appellant has not participated in the hearing to contest his case. No intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
16. However, before parting with the case, the Respondent is cautioned to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future.
Decision in CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/639428:
17. At the very outset, the Commission observes that the subject matter of the instant RTI Application under reference has already been adjudicated in Second Appeal No. CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602450, by another bench of the Commission vide order dated 16.05.2025. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is barred by principles of Res Judicata.
18. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that 15 Second Appeals of the same Appellant against same Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different Benches of the Commission. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority to offer him regular employment rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26160943 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, M/o Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110023.Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)