Explore the Baki Range Ranger controversy revealing issues in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department’s transfer policies. This case highlights a series of troubling practices that raise questions about transparency and accountability within the department. Many rangers feel their transfers are not based on merit or performance but rather on political influence and favoritism. Additionally, the lack of a clear, standardized procedure for transfers has resulted in confusion and discontent among staff, potentially affecting their morale and productivity. Critics argue that these practices undermine conservation efforts and could lead to ecological degradation in vulnerable areas. As the controversy unfolds, it has sparked discussions about the need for reform in the transfer system, aiming to establish a fairer framework that prioritizes conservation work and the well-being of those dedicated to protecting the forests.

Baki Range Ranger Controversy Explained: Accountability or Administrative Apathy?

Every government department depends on strict adherence to transfer policies and hierarchical structures. In fact, this is how it maintains its integrity. However, the Baki Range Ranger Controversy shows what happens when that adherence breaks down. A recent RTI inquiry by activist Yogi M P Singh has exposed a questionable arrangement. Specifically, it sits within the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department. This involves the Baki Range of the Gorakhpur Division. There, a Deputy Ranger has reportedly held the charge of a Ranger for over four years. In effect, this allegedly bypasses state transfer policies and overlooks qualified personnel.

Understanding the Baki Range Ranger Controversy: A “Temporary” Arrangement Turned Permanent

The controversy centers on Jagdamba Pathak, a Deputy Ranger. Specifically, he received charge of the Baki Range after the previous incumbent’s death from cardiac arrest. Administrative exigencies commonly call for “alternative arrangements” (वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था). However, the grievance here concerns the duration of this particular one.

According to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of Gorakhpur, this falls under the “Government Level” (शासन स्तर). Namely, that level covers the posting of a full-fledged Ranger. The government has not yet appointed a formal Ranger to the Baki Range. As a result, the local administration has simply continued with Mr. Pathak. Still, four years far exceeds the standard definition of a “stop-gap” measure. In particular, this matters for a sensitive zone like the Baki Range, which borders Nepal.

Under normal circumstances, a range without a confirmed Ranger receives a short-term “additional charge” arrangement. Typically, this lasts weeks, or at most a few months, while the department processes a formal appointment. This gap between normal practice and the current arrangement is precisely what fuels the Baki Range Ranger Controversy. Four years, by contrast, suggests something else. Accordingly, it points either to a genuine administrative bottleneck or a deliberate decision to leave the post unfilled. Either explanation carries consequences. On one hand, the first points to institutional dysfunction. On the other hand, the second raises far more serious questions about motive and favoritism. Consequently, the RTI application does not merely ask “why.” It asks the department to put that reasoning on the record. In turn, it can be examined there and, if necessary, challenged.

The Legal Mandate Behind the Baki Range Ranger Controversy: RTI Act and the “Right to Reason”

The RTI application (Registration No: DPTFW/R/2025/60026) does more than request names and numbers. It demands administrative accountability under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005. Specifically, this clause requires public authorities to provide reasons for their decisions to affected persons.

Accordingly, the applicant has raised six critical points that the Forest Department must now answer:

1. The “Waiting List”: Identification of qualified Rangers currently without a range posting.
2. Justification for Duration: The specific administrative reasoning behind keeping a Deputy Ranger in a senior post for 48+ months.
3. Accountability of Superiors: The names of officials at the government level responsible for overseeing these postings.
4. Local Efforts: Evidence of whether the Gorakhpur Division ever requested a formal replacement.
5. Systemic Data: A statewide audit of how many Deputy Rangers currently hold Ranger-level “plum postings.”
6. Policy Compliance: An explanation of why the standard U.P. Government Transfer Policy was overlooked in this instance.

Together, these six points form a coherent chain of inquiry, not a scattershot list of demands. Points 1 and 5, for instance, work in tandem. If qualified Rangers exist elsewhere in the state, the department cannot credibly claim it had no alternative to Mr. Pathak. Similarly, Points 3 and 6 aim squarely at individual accountability. After all, naming specific officials makes it far harder to treat this as a faceless, systemic delay. In short, the RTI application functions less like a routine request. Instead, it works more like a structured audit trail, one designed to leave the department with very few places to hide.

The “Bureaucratic Shuffle”: Why Was the RTI Transferred?

One significant source of frustration for the applicant is the transfer of the RTI application itself. Initially, the Forest Department (Secretariat) received the filing. However, the department transferred it on April 29, 2025. Specifically, it went to the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) & HOD, Lucknow. (Baki Range Ranger Controversy)

The government claims that Ranger postings occur at the “Government Level.” Yet officials have redirected the inquiry to the HOD (Head of Department) level. This raises a pertinent question. If the power to appoint lies with the Government, why does the Secretariat shift its obligation onto the Executive wing? Ultimately, this “ping-pong” of applications often serves one purpose. In practice, it delays disclosure of sensitive information regarding “plum postings.

This pattern is not unique to the Baki Range Ranger Controversy. RTI activists across Uttar Pradesh frequently report similar transfers between departments. Meanwhile, each shift resets expectations around timelines. It also creates fresh opportunities for delay. For an ordinary applicant without legal training, tracking two registration numbers across two offices already presents a real obstacle. As a result, the burden of persistence falls disproportionately on the citizen. Ironically, this runs counter to the RTI Act’s original intent, which was to shift that burden toward the state.

The Security Implication: The Nepal Border Factor

The Baki Range is not just any administrative unit. It qualifies as a “super-sensitive area” because of its proximity to the Nepal border. Consequently, border ranges require high-level oversight. Specifically, this oversight helps prevent timber smuggling, poaching, and illegal cross-border movement. In other words, leaving such a sensitive range under “temporary” leadership for four years compromises regional security.

Moreover, a Deputy Ranger operating in an acting capacity typically holds less formal authority than a confirmed officer. Likewise, the support structure behind that authority may also be thinner. Indeed, in a border zone, that gap can matter a great deal. Negotiations with counterpart agencies, coordination with border security forces, and enforcement against smuggling networks all benefit from unambiguous, permanent authority. Therefore, treating the Baki Range’s leadership vacancy as a routine footnote risks understating its real-world stakes.

Analyzing the “Plum Posting” Allegation

In administrative parlance, a “plum posting” refers to a position considered desirable because of its location, influence, or resources. The RTI seeker alleges that keeping Jagdamba Pathak in this role grants him an undue advantage. Meanwhile, senior Rangers continue to await their turn.

The government may defend itself by citing a shortage of Rangers. If so, the data in Point 5 will serve as the “smoking gun.” After all, unassigned Rangers may be sitting in regional offices while Deputy Rangers run key ranges. In that case, the fact would point toward a systemic failure, or worse, a culture of favoritism.

Notably, “plum postings” carry real professional and financial value in the forest service. Namely, they offer access to a defined territory and discretionary authority over local enforcement. Additionally, they carry informal influence that a headquarters role would not provide. For this reason, allegations of favoritism in these appointments tend to draw sharper public scrutiny. Indeed, this holds true even compared to disputes in less visible departments. Whether or not the Baki Range Ranger Controversy ultimately reveals wrongdoing, the pattern itself is telling. A single officer retaining an unconfirmed “plum” charge for years, without public explanation, fits a familiar pattern. Ultimately, it is exactly the kind of opacity that Section 4(1)(d) was written to prevent.

Key Stakeholders	Role/Responsibility
Government (UP Sasun)	Responsible for the formal appointment of Rangers.
PCCF (HOD) Lucknow	Manages the cadre’s day-to-day operations.
DFO Gorakhpur	Reports vacancies and handles local oversight.
Jagdamba Pathak	Currently serves as Deputy Ranger-in-charge of Baki Range.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for the Baki Range Ranger Controversy

Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the Forest Department now has 30 days to provide a point-wise reply. Meanwhile, the application transferred to Shri Shubham Singh (ADSO) at the PCCF office. Consequently, that transfer marks the start of the clock.

This case therefore serves as a litmus test. Specifically, it tests the Uttar Pradesh government’s commitment to its own transfer policies. If the department fails to provide a sound reason for this four-year “temporary” arrangement, consequences may follow. In that case, a formal appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC), and ultimately judicial intervention, could result.

After all, transparency involves more than simply handing over data. Rather, it requires justifying the exercise of power. For now, the citizens of Uttar Pradesh await their “Right to Reason.”

Beyond this single case, the outcome could carry broader implications. Specifically, it may shape how the Forest Department handles vacant Ranger posts statewide. Should the department respond with a genuine, well-documented justification, that response would set a useful precedent for future stop-gap arrangements. Conversely, the department might stall, deflect, or provide only a partial answer. In that case, the matter will likely proceed to the First Appeal stage. From there, the matter may reach the State Information Commission. Ultimately, each step would generate a fuller public record. In turn, it would show how, and why, “temporary” postings sometimes become permanent in practice.

---

Here is structured contact and reference information based on the details above. Accordingly, use it to track your RTI’s progress and follow up with the concerned officers.

1. RTI Application Details (Baki Range Ranger Controversy)

The application transferred from the Secretariat to the Head of Department (HOD) level. As a result, you now hold two active registration numbers.

Tracking Phase	Registration Number	Date of Filing	Current Status
Original Filing	DPTFW/R/2025/60026	12/02/2025	Transferred
New Filing (PCCF)	PCCFO/R/2025/80095	29/04/2025	Received/Under Process

2. Public Information Officers (PIO) Contact Details

If you do not receive a response within 30 days of the transfer date, contact these individuals directly.

Current Custodian of Information (PCCF Office):

• PIO Name: Shubham Singh (ADSO)
• Designation: Assistant Statistical Officer, Office of CCF Administration (Non-Gazetted), U.P. Lucknow
• Mobile Number: +91 9455050897
• Email ID: ccfadm[at]gmail[dot]com

Nodal Officer (PCCF Office):

• Name: Yogendra Pal Singh Bharti
• Mobile Number: +91 9839612506
• Email ID: pccf-up[at]nic[dot]in

Original PIO (Forest Section 1 – Secretariat):

• PIO Name: Sushil Kumar (Section Officer)
• Mobile Number: +91 9454412843
• Email ID: vananubhag1[at]gmail[dot]com

3. Official Web Links (Baki Range Ranger Controversy)

Use the official Uttar Pradesh RTI portal to check real-time status. Additionally, it lets you file a First Appeal if the response proves unsatisfactory:

• Status Tracking Link: UP RTI Online – View Status
• Main Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in

4. Recommended Next Steps

The PCCF office received your application on 29/04/2025. As a result, the PIO’s deadline to provide the information falls on 29/05/2025.

Point of Focus: Mention that the transfer from the Secretariat to the PCCF office confirms the information is held at the HOD level. Therefore, “lack of information” cannot serve as an excuse for denial.

If you receive no response by May 29: File a First Appeal immediately under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.