Accountability or Administrative Apathy? The Case of the Baki Range Ranger Charge

The integrity of a government department rests on its adherence to established transfer policies and hierarchical structures. However, a recent RTI inquiry initiated by activist Yogi M P Singh has brought to light a questionable administrative arrangement within the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department. The core of the issue lies in the Baki Range of the Gorakhpur Division, where a Deputy Ranger has reportedly been holding the charge of a Ranger for over four years—a situation that allegedly bypasses state transfer policies and overlooks qualified personnel.

The Context: A “Temporary” Arrangement Turned Permanent

The controversy centers on Jagdamba Pathak, a Deputy Ranger who was granted the charge of the Baki Range following the unfortunate demise of the previous incumbent due to a cardiac arrest. While “alternative arrangements” (वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था) are common in administrative exigencies, the grievance here is the duration.

According to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of Gorakhpur, the posting of a full-fledged Ranger is a matter handled at the “Government Level” (शासन स्तर). Because the government has not appointed a formal Ranger to the Baki Range, the local administration has continued with Mr. Pathak. However, four years is a period that exceeds the standard definition of a “stop-gap” measure, especially for a sensitive zone like the Baki Range, which shares a border with Nepal.

The Legal Mandate: RTI Act and the “Right to Reason”

The RTI application filed (Registration No: DPTFW/R/2025/60026) is not merely a request for names and numbers; it is a demand for administrative accountability under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005. This specific clause mandates that public authorities provide reasons for their administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

The applicant has raised six critical points that the Forest Department is now obligated to answer:

1. The “Waiting List”: Identification of qualified Rangers who are currently without a range posting.
2. Justification for Duration: The specific administrative reasoning for 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 are currently holding Ranger-level “plum postings.
6. Policy Compliance: An explanation of why the standard U.P. Government Transfer Policy was overlooked in this specific instance.

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

A significant point of frustration for the applicant is the transfer of the RTI application. Originally filed with the Forest Department (Secretariat), it was transferred on April 29, 2025, to the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) & HOD, Lucknow.

While the government claims that Ranger postings are done at the “Government Level,” they 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 (Secretariat), why is the Secretariat transferring the obligation to provide reasons to the Executive wing (PCCF)? This “ping-pong” of applications often serves to delay the disclosure of sensitive information regarding “plum postings.

The Security Implication: The Nepal Border Factor

The Baki Range is not just any administrative unit; it is described as a “super-sensitive area” due to its proximity to the Nepal border. Border ranges require high-level oversight to prevent timber smuggling, poaching, and illegal cross-border movement. The argument presented is that leaving such a sensitive range under “temporary” leadership for four years compromises the strategic and ecological security of the region.

Analyzing the “Plum Posting” Allegation

In administrative parlance, a “plum posting” refers to a position that is considered desirable due to its location, influence, or resources. The RTI seeker alleges that by keeping Jagdamba Pathak in this role, the department is providing an undue advantage while ignoring senior Rangers who are awaiting their turn.

If the government’s defense is that there is a shortage of Rangers, the data requested in Point 5 of the RTI will be the “smoking gun.” If there are indeed unassigned Rangers sitting in regional offices while Deputy Rangers run key ranges, it points toward a systemic failure—or worse, a culture of favoritism.

Key Stakeholders	Role/Responsibility
Government (UP Sasun)	Responsible for the formal appointment of Rangers.
PCCF (HOD) Lucknow	Responsible for the operational management of the cadre.
DFO Gorakhpur	Responsible for reporting vacancies and local oversight.
Jagdamba Pathak	Current Deputy Ranger-in-charge of Baki Range.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The Forest Department now has 30 days, as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, to provide a point-wise reply. The transfer of the application to Shri Shubham Singh (ADSO) at the PCCF office marks the beginning of the clock.

This case serves as a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh government’s commitment to its own transfer policies. If the department fails to provide a sound legal and administrative reason for this four-year “temporary” arrangement, it may open the doors for a formal appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC) and potential judicial intervention.

Transparency is not just about providing data; it is about justifying the exercise of power. The citizens of Uttar Pradesh await the “Right to Reason.”

To help you track the progress of your RTI and follow up with the concerned officers, here is the structured contact and reference information based on the details provided.

1. RTI Application Details

You currently have two active registration numbers due to the transfer of the application from the Secretariat to the Head of Department (HOD) level.

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, you should 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

To check the real-time status or to file a First Appeal if the response is unsatisfactory, use the official Uttar Pradesh RTI portal:

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

---

4. Recommended Next Steps

Since your application was received at the PCCF office on 29/04/2025, the deadline for the PIO to provide the information is 29/05/2025.

• If you get no response by May 29: You should immediately file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
• Point of Focus: Ensure you mention that the transfer from the Secretariat to the PCCF office confirms that the information is held at the HOD level, and therefore, “lack of information” cannot be an excuse for denial.

Would you like me to draft a template for the “First Appeal” in case you need to file it next month?