Key takeaways from the blog post

Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the Baki Range administrative and RTI matter:

1. Administrative Irregularity in Postings

The central issue is the “temporary” posting of Deputy Ranger Jagdamba Pathak as the Ranger of Baki Range for over four years. Under the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department’s transfer policy, such a long tenure in a single post—especially by a subordinate officer in a superior role—is a violation of standard governance protocols.

2. The “Bureaucratic Ping-Pong”

There is a clear pattern of accountability avoidance between different levels of the Forest Department:

• The DFO Gorakhpur claims the authority to post Rangers lies solely with the State Government.
• The Lucknow Administration (CCF Office) transferred the RTI back to the Division level, claiming the jurisdiction lies there.
• This creates a loop where no office takes responsibility for the decision-making process.

3. Violation of RTI Act Provisions

The department is currently failing to uphold specific mandates of the Right to Information Act 2005:

• Section 4(1)(d): The “Right to Reason.” The department has not provided a legal or administrative justification for why a Deputy Ranger is holding a sensitive border-range charge for 48+ months.
• Section 7(1): Failure to provide information within the stipulated 30-day window, even after a second appeal.

4. Sensitivity of the Baki Range

The geographic location of the Baki Range adds gravity to the situation. Being a border area (Nepal), it is classified as “super sensitive.” Keeping a temporary arrangement in place for four years suggests a lack of serious oversight in a region requiring high-level security and environmental management.

5. Lack of Data Transparency

The RTI seeker has requested specific data points that remain unanswered, including:

• The number of regular Rangers currently without a range (waiting for posting).
• The total number of Deputy Rangers currently working as “In-charge Rangers” across the state.
• The existence (or absence) of official demand letters sent by the local office to fill the vacancy.

---

Next Step

Since the department is using the Section 6(3) transfer as a delay tactic, would you like me to draft a Rejoinder/Reminder to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) or help you prepare a formal Complaint to the State Information Commission regarding the “Right to Reason?

This blog post explores a critical governance issue within the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department, specifically focusing on the case of Baki Range, Gorakhpur. It highlights the administrative irregularities and the systemic delay in the Right to Information (RTI) process.

---

Bureaucratic Impasse: The Case of the ‘Permanent’ Temporary Ranger

In the complex machinery of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department, the Baki Range in Gorakhpur has become a symbol of administrative stagnation and lack of accountability. For over four years, a Deputy Ranger, Shri Jagdamba Pathak, has been holding the charge of a Ranger—a position typically reserved for Group ‘B’ officers appointed by the state government.

This is not just a story about a single posting; it is a case study on how public authorities use procedural loopholes to bypass state transfer policies and evade the “Right to Reason” under the RTI Act 2005.

The Core Conflict: Rule vs. Reality

According to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Forest Service Rules, a Ranger (Regional Forest Officer) is a pivotal role responsible for financial oversight and law enforcement. The state’s transfer policy generally dictates a maximum tenure of three years at a single location to prevent the formation of vested interests and to curb corruption.

However, in Baki Range—a sensitive area bordering Nepal—the following facts have emerged:

• The Vacancy: The post became vacant four years ago following the death of the incumbent Ranger.
• The ‘Alternative’ Arrangement: Instead of a government-sanctioned posting of a regular Ranger, Deputy Ranger Jagdamba Pathak was given “temporary charge.
• The Duration: This “temporary” arrangement has persisted for over 48 months, directly contradicting the standard 3-year transfer rotation.

The RTI Runaround: Deflecting Accountability

When information seeker Yogi M.P. Singh sought clarification on this prolonged ad-hoc arrangement, he was met with what can only be described as a bureaucratic “ping-pong” match.

1. The DFO’s Stance: The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Gorakhpur initially stated that the posting of a Ranger is a “government-level” decision. By doing so, the local office washed its hands of the responsibility for Pathak’s extended tenure.
2. The Departmental Transfer: Paradoxically, when the matter reached the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration) in Lucknow, the application was transferred back toward the division level under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

This raises a fundamental question: If the posting is done by the government, why is the department “running away” from the matter by transferring it to lower-level officials who claim they have no authority over the decision?

The Right to Reason: A Violated Principle

Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 makes it obligatory for every public authority to provide the reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected parties. In this case, the department has failed to justify:

• Why a Deputy Ranger is deemed suitable for a high-level charge for four years.
• Why the “government level” has failed to fill a vacancy in a sensitive border range for nearly half a decade.
• Whether any “demand letters” were ever sent by the local office to the state to fill this vacancy.

The Strategic Silence of the PIO

Despite a second appeal, the requested information—including the names of Rangers currently without a range and the specific demand letters for Baki Range—remains elusive. By transferring the RTI and providing vague reports, the Public Information Officer (PIO) is potentially violating Section 7(1), which mandates the supply of information within 30 days.

“Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. Silence in the face of such a glaring policy violation suggests a deliberate attempt to protect ‘plum postings’ rather than adhere to the law.”

---

Conclusion: A Call for Transparency

The situation in Baki Range is not merely an internal HR issue; it is a matter of public interest. When subordinate officers hold higher-level charges for years, it compromises the hierarchy, demoralizes qualified officers awaiting promotion, and creates a lack of transparency in a department responsible for India’s natural resources.

The Uttar Pradesh Forest Department must stop the cycle of transfers and provide a clear, point-wise response to the six queries raised in the RTI application. Transparency is not an option—it is a legal mandate.

Based on the official records and RTI tracking information, here are the detailed contact points, application IDs, and digital links for the concerned public authorities.

1. RTI Application References

Because your application was transferred from the Secretariat level to the Head of Department (HOD) level, you have two tracking numbers:

Stage	Registration Number	Status
Original Filing	DPTFW/R/2025/60026	Transferred to HOD
Current Filing	PCCFO/R/2025/80095	Active/Under Process

---

2. Concerned Public Information Officers (PIOs)

Primary Custodian (Lucknow – HOD Level)

This is the office currently holding your application and responsible for the final reply.

• PIO Name: Shubham Singh (ADSO)
• Office: Office of Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), Lucknow
• Mobile: +91 9455050897 / 949455050897
• Email: ccfadm@gmail.com
• Nodal Officer: Yogendra Pal Singh Bharti (pccf-up@nic.in | 9839612506)

Gorakhpur Division (Local Jurisdiction)

This is the office the Lucknow PIO has asked to provide the ground-level facts.

• Public Authority: Chief Conservator of Forests, Gorakhpur Division
• Office Phone/Fax: 0551-2333558
• Email: ccfgorakhpurmandal@gmail.com
• Address: Aranya Vikas Bhawan, Medical College Road, Gorakhpur

Secretariat Level (Forest Section-1)

The initial office that received and transferred your request.

• PIO Name: Sushil Kumar (Section Officer)
• Mobile: 9454412843 (listed as 99554418388 in portal data)
• Email: vananubhag1@gmail.com

---

3. Web Links & Portals

• RTI Tracking Link:UP RTI Online – View Status
  • Use this to track PCCFO/R/2025/80095.
• Official Department Website: UP Forest Department
• RTI First Appeal Portal:File First Appeal
  • Required if no response is received by May 29, 2025.

---

Important Note on Deadlines

Since your application was officially received at the PCCF Lucknow office on April 29, 2025, the statutory deadline for a response under Section 7(1) is May 29, 2025. If the information is not provided by this date, the “deemed refusal” clause applies.

Would you like me to draft a follow-up email to Mr. Shubham Singh (ADSO) reminding him of the May 29th deadline and the sensitivity of the Baki Range?