Uttar Pradesh’s forest governance faces a troubling question today: how did a Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 years in forest administration become normal practice in a “super sensitive” zone like the Baki Range? Under the Gorakhpur Division, Deputy Ranger Shri Jagdamba Pathak has held acting charge of the Forest Ranger post well beyond what officials call a temporary “alternative arrangement.” Consequently, this prolonged posting raises serious concerns about administrative integrity, transparency, and environmental protection. To challenge the practice, RTI activist Yogi M P Singh filed a formal application (Registration Number: DPTFW/R/2025/60026), demanding clear answers from the department. Beyond a simple staffing gap, however, this case points to a deeper pattern of unchecked authority, one that may have enabled unauthorized tree felling and eroded public trust in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department’s oversight mechanisms.

Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest: Questioning Uttar Pradesh’s Forest Governance

A Deputy Ranger has held the charge of Forest Ranger for over four years. This happened in the Baki Range, a “super sensitive” area under the Gorakhpur Division. As a result, the arrangement raises serious questions about administrative rules, public accountability, and environmental protection in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department.

To challenge this practice, Yogi M P Singh filed an RTI application (Registration Number: DPTFW/R/2025/60026). However, the application does more than flag a procedural lapse. Instead, it points to a systemic failure of oversight. Consequently, this failure may have enabled real environmental damage, including the unauthorized felling of green trees in the Kodwari forest area of Mirzapur.

---

The Rules vs. The Reality: A Case of Prolonged “Alternative Arrangement” (Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest)

According to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Gorakhpur, the justification is simple. Specifically, officials call the continued charge-holding by Deputy Ranger Shri Jagdamba Pathak an “alternative arrangement.” In other words, they say the government has not filled the Ranger position. Indeed, the U.P. Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 1951 do permit ad-hoc promotions based on fitness and qualifications. However, the rules designed these as temporary measures, not indefinite appointments that bypass the regular promotion and posting mechanisms. Therefore, a gap clearly exists between what the rules intend and what the department has actually practiced.

Why Does a Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years Raise Concerns?

Several distinct risks follow from this prolonged arrangement: (Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest)

• Erosion of Authority: A Deputy Ranger holds a different mandate than a formally appointed Ranger, even while carrying Ranger-level charge. Generally, this officer has less seniority and decision-making power. As a result, the gap can weaken the range’s administrative backbone.
• Bypassing Accountability: Similarly, indefinite charge-holding blurs responsibility. When an officer acts in this capacity for years, nobody can clearly answer for long-term policy failures and environmental damage.
• Ignoring Public Will: Meanwhile, the local community has repeatedly objected to this arrangement. Since local people are the primary stakeholders in forest conservation, their objections signal a serious breakdown in trust. Ultimately, public accountability demands transparent, timely procedures for sensitive administrative appointments.

Taken together, these three concerns show why an officer’s title and formal standing matter, not just their day-to-day duties.

---

Allegations and Environmental Integrity

In addition to the administrative loophole, serious allegations against the concerned officer compound the problem. Specifically, these allegations include misconduct and the unauthorized felling of green trees. Furthermore, large-scale illegal tree felling has also hit the Kodwari forest area of Mirzapur. Together, these incidents suggest something bigger than an isolated local failure. In fact, they point to a pattern of environmental crime that flourishes wherever governance stays weak or compromised.

The Failure of Oversight (Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest)

Despite these complaints, higher authorities in the face of these public objections have stayed silent. This silence, in turn, marks a grave failure of oversight. Moreover, the system appears to shield the officer, which enables further misuse of power and erodes public trust. Consequently, this negligence sends a clear message: environmental violations may go unpunished when administrative ambiguity protects the people who commit them. (Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest)

Additionally, the Baki Range’s proximity to the Nepal border raises the stakes further. Because border areas face constant risk from timber smuggling and other cross-border illegal activities, this risk demands the strongest possible leadership and highest level of integrity from the appointed Ranger. Yet, officials have left this critical post under a prolonged ad-hoc arrangement, despite serious pending allegations. As a result, that combination creates both an administrative and an ecological hazard.

---

The Core Questions Demanded by the RTI (Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest)

To unmask the systemic issues behind this prolonged irregularity, the RTI request demands specific information. Accordingly, the Public Information Officer (PIO) must address the following five questions:

1. Staffing and Vacancies: First, how many Ranger posts exist, and which Rangers currently sit unassigned to a range? This question tests whether a qualified Ranger was truly unavailable, or whether the government level has simply mismanaged its personnel.
2. The Right to Reason: Next, and most crucially, Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, public authorities face an “obligatory duty” to provide reasons for their administrative decisions. Therefore, the PIO must explain why officials chose a Deputy Ranger to hold charge for four years, and why the arrangement continues despite public objections and misconduct allegations.
3. Supervisory Accountability: Similarly, who supervises Ranger postings at the government level? By naming these officials, the RTI aims to identify who bears responsibility for the four-year vacancy and the failure to make a permanent appointment.
4. Demand Letters for Vacancy: Also, did the local office send demand letters requesting officials fill the Baki Range vacancy? These letters will reveal whether the delay stems from local inaction or a lack of response and priority from the higher government level.
5. Overlooking Transfer Policy: Finally, Shri Jagdamba Pathak has stayed in what looks like a “plum posting” in a sensitive area. Thus, the PIO must explain how this retention aligns with the government’s standard transfer policy, which exists to prevent long-term stagnation and entrenched vested interests.

Collectively, these five questions form a coherent test of whether the department followed its own rules, or merely used them as cover.

---

The Path Forward: Restoring Trust and Integrity

To genuinely address the concerns raised, the Forest Department and district administration must act immediately and decisively to restore public confidence. Specifically, three steps stand out as most urgent.(Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest)

1. Legality and Time-Bound Appointment: First, officials must review the prolonged charge for its legality under the 1951 Rules and applicable service laws. Then, they should set a time-bound plan to fill the Baki Range Ranger position through regular promotion or direct appointment, ending the “alternative arrangement” immediately.
2. Impartial Investigation: Next, an impartial, high-level inquiry must examine the illegal tree felling and misconduct allegations. Afterward, officials should make the findings public and take action against any official found involved, regardless of rank.
3. Transparency and Community Engagement: Finally, future appointments and transfers in sensitive areas need maximum transparency. In addition, the administration must engage local communities, whose knowledge and grievances remain invaluable for effective forest protection and rebuilding fractured trust.

Ultimately, the health of the forest and the strength of its governance stay closely linked. When administrative rules stay suspended indefinitely, and officers appear shielded from serious accusations, the forests themselves become vulnerable. Therefore, the response to this RTI gives the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department a critical opportunity to demonstrate real commitment to environmental protection and institutional integrity.

In conclusion, a Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 years in forest administration is not a minor technicality. Rather, it is a warning sign of how easily oversight can erode when nobody enforces time limits on “temporary” arrangements. Going forward, only firm, transparent action can restore the trust that this prolonged irregularity has clearly damaged.

Web Link Details (Deputy Ranger as Ranger for 4 Years in Forest)

Uttar Pradesh Forest & Wildlife Department: upforest.gov.inUttar Pradesh Information Commission: upic.gov.inRTI Online Portal, Uttar Pradesh: rtionline.up.gov.inJansunwai UP — RTI Section, NIC Uttar Pradesh: jansunwai.up.nic.in/RTICentral Information Commission: cic.gov.inRTI Online (Central Govt. portal — for reference only, not for UP state departments): rtionline.gov.in

---

Would you like to know which specific rule in the U.P. Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 1951 governs the acting/temporary promotion of Deputy Rangers to Forest Rangers? of Deputy Rangers to Forest Rangers?

---