The key takeaway from the blog post is the exposure of a “Bureaucratic Merry-Go-Round.” The blog post reveals the existence of a “Bureaucratic Merry-Go-Round.” One striking example discussed is Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range. This system protects potential administrative corruption from public scrutiny.

The core findings are: (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

• Policy Violation as a Norm: The organisation has assigned a senior-rank position to Jagdamba Pathak, a junior-rank officer.This situation has lasted for over 3.5 years. It directly contravenes the Uttar Pradesh Government’s transfer policy.
• Weaponising RTI Rules: The Forest Department is using a technical loophole. They point out a loophole in Rule 2(b)(4) of the UP RTI Rules 2015, arguing that they do not legally have to provide a “reason” or “justification” for their actions. Instead, they claim they only need to provide existing raw data.
• Deliberate Fragmentation: Higher authorities are practicing “jurisdictional passing of the buck.” This forces the information seeker to file multiple separate applications to different offices for a single issue. As a result, the seeker becomes exhausted in terms of resources and patience.
• The Accountability Gap: It exists. The local office blames a “lack of senior postings” from the state. Meanwhile, the state points the finger at the local division. This creates a cycle where no one takes responsibility for the illegal duration of the posting.

Would you like me to draft a specific legal argument? Alternatively, I can create a letter to the State Information Commissioner. This letter would challenge the DFO’s refusal to provide a “reason” for the policy violation.

The RTI Runaround: Investigating the “Junior-in-Charge” Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range in Uttar Pradesh

In a functioning democracy, people often hail the Right to Information (RTI) as the “sunlight.” This sunlight disinfects the corridors of power. However, for activists like Yogi M.P. Singh, the pursuit of transparency often traps us in a hall of mirrors. The Banki Range case is significant. They need to consider several factors. Additionally, it has implications for the surrounding environment and the local community. Understanding these elements is crucial for effective management.

At the heart of this dispute is a simple question. Why has the authority assigned a junior-rank officer to a senior-rank post for over three and a half years? This situation appears to violate the state’s transfer policy.

---

The Core Controversy: The Case of Jagdamba Pathak

The grievance centres on Shri Jagdamba Pathak, a Deputy Forest Officer of junior rank. He has been serving as the in-charge Ranger of the Banki Range for approximately 42 months. The Government of Uttar Pradesh generally discourages long-term postings under its established transfer policies. This is especially true for junior officers holding senior responsibilities. The aim is to prevent the vesting of interests and to maintain administrative hierarchy. (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

The complainant alleges that this isn’t just a procedural lapse but a symptom of deep-rooted corruption. When decision-makers handpick junior officers for senior roles, they often raise red flags. This situation can indicate favouritism. It may also suggest circumventing departmental checks and balances.

---

The Bureaucratic “Passing of the Buck” (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

The documentation reveals a frustrating cycle of transfers between different offices. When the Information Seeker approached the Forest Department, a classic “jurisdictional shuffle” ensued:

1. The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Gorakhpur: Initially claimed the matter concerned the Government Secretariat.
2. The Secretariat: Reverted by stating the matter falls under the DFO Gorakhpur.
3. The Nodal Officer, Lucknow: The Nodal Officer in Lucknow transferred the request back to Gorakhpur. They cited that the local office is the custodian of specific records.

This circular flow of paperwork serves a dual purpose for the bureaucracy. First, it exhausts the applicant’s patience. Second, it delays the mandatory 30-day response window prescribed under the RTI Act 2005.

---

Analyzing the DFO’s Defense: The “Right to Reason”

The DFO Gorakhpur, Vikas Yadav, eventually provided a response that highlights a significant tension in RTI jurisprudence. The DFO cited Rule 2(b)(4) of the Uttar Pradesh RTI Rules 2015. This provision suggests that “answering a demand for justification” is distinct. It means justifying doing or not doing any work does not fall within the definition of providing “information.”It distinguishes between answering demands and sharing information. (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

Assigning a senior rank officer’s responsibilities to a junior officer for an extended period is corrupt. It is a kind of corruption. However, claimants of good governance will never meditate on such issues.” — Excerpt from the Complaint.

The DFO asserts that the department must only provide existing records, such as documents, logs, and memos. The organisation does not have a legal obligation to explain the logic or reasoning behind its administrative decisions. However, this position contradicts the spirit of the Right to Reason. Legal scholars argue that this right is an indispensable part of sound administration. If someone violates a policy, such as the Transfer Policy. The public has a right to know the official justification for the deviation. (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

---

The “Staff Shortage” Justification (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

In an internal communication dated November 2023, the DFO Gorakhpur admitted something important. Shri Jagdamba Pathak is indeed holding the charge. This is because a Regional Forest Officer (RFO) has not been posted by the government. The letter stated:

• The Admission: “Due to the non-posting of a Regional Forest Officer in Banki Range… Shri Jagdamba Pathak is in charge.”
• The Solution: He will only be moved “after the posting of a Regional Forest Officer by the government.”

This creates a “catch-22” situation. The local office blames the state government for not sending a senior officer. While the state government (Secretariat) points back to the local office for managing the current staff. Meanwhile, the junior officer remains in a senior position indefinitely.

---

The RTI Hierarchy and the Appellate Hurdle (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

The response from Pramod Kumar Gupta, Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), further complicates the seeker’s path. In June 2025, he disposed of the appeal. He directed the appellant to file separate RTI applications. These applications were to be sent to various offices, including PCCF, CCF Gorakhpur, and CCF Lucknow.

This is a common tactic known as “fragmentation.” The department forces an applicant to file five different applications for one single issue. This increases the costs and legal hurdles for the citizen. This effectively buries the core issue.

---

Corruption or Systemic Failure?

The complainant’s allegation is clear: this is not an accident; it is an “illegal posting” designed to facilitate corruption. In the forestry sector, the “Range Officer” plays a critical role in managing land. The “Range Officer” facilitates timber auctions and oversees conservation funds. When a junior officer occupies this position through a “special arrangement,” the civil service’s competitive safeguards are bypassed. This arrangement also circumvents the seniority-based protections that are typically in place. (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

Key Concerns Raised: (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

• Violation of Transfer Policy: Most state policies mandate a move after 3 years; Pathak has exceeded this.
• Why aren’t senior officers from other ranges or divisions transferring to fill the gap? Junior officers are taking charge over senior ones.
• Lack of Transparency: Why is the department hiding behind Rule 2(b)(4) instead of providing a transparent memo explaining the exigency?

---

Conclusion: The Need for Judicial Intervention (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

The case of the Gorakhpur Forest Division shows that the RTI Act is powerful only when officers enforce it effectively. When departments use the “Right to Reason” exemption, they avoid explaining policy violations. This undermines the “Good Governance” (Su-shasan) they claim to uphold.

If the Forest Department continues to provide evasive answers, the next step for transparency advocates is clear. They can appeal to the State Information Commission or file a Writ Petition in the High Court. Enforcing the “Right to Reason” will dismantle the “Junior-in-Charge” culture in Uttar Pradesh’s Forest Department.

---

What can you do? (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

If you are facing a similar “RTI Runaround,” ensure you document every transfer of your application. Under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, it is the officer’s duty to transfer the application—not the citizen’s duty to refile it five times.

To help you navigate the administrative maze and formalize your follow-up, here are the verified contact details and web links for the public authorities mentioned in your case.

---

1. Primary Public Authorities (Gorakhpur & Lucknow) (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

Authority	Designation	Contact Number	Email ID
DFO, Gorakhpur	Divisional Forest Officer	0551-2333108	dfogr-up@nic.in / dfogorakhpur@yahoo.co.in
CCF, Gorakhpur	Chief Conservator of Forests	0551-2333558	ccfgr-up@nic.in / ccfgorakhpurmandal@gmail.com
PCCF, Lucknow	Head of Department (UP)	0522-2206168	pccf-up@nic.in
CCF (Admin), Lucknow	Appellate Officer	0522-2207982	ccfadmgaz-up@nic.in
Nodal Officer (RTI)	CCF Nodal Office, Lucknow	0522-2206183	ccfnodaloff-up@nic.in

---

2. Higher Oversight Authorities

If you wish to escalate the matter of “Right to Reason” or the violation of the transfer policy to the Secretariat level:(Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

• Principal Secretary (Forest): * Phone: 0522-2238669 | Mobile: 9453006001
  • Email: psecforest-up@nic.in
• Secretary (Forest): * Phone: 0522-2238465 | Mobile: 9453006017
  • Email: secforest-up@nic.in

---

3. Essential Web Links & Portals (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

• RTI Online Uttar Pradesh:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • Use this to file your First Appeal or a fresh application if directed.
• UP State Information Commission:upsic.gov.in
  • Use this for filing a Second Appeal (Section 19(3)) or a Complaint (Section 18). File if the PIO continues to deny information based on Rule 2(b)(4).
• IGRS Jansunwai Portal:jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Use this to report the administrative irregularity of the junior officer’s long-term posting as a grievance rather than an RTI.
• UP Forest Department Official Site: upforest.gov.in

---

4. Application Details for Reference

Based on your provided documents, ensure you quote these IDs in all future correspondence: (Jagdamba Pathak’s Posting in Baki Range)

• IGRS Complaint No: 6006623020569
• RTI Registration No: PCCFO/R/2024/60096
• Appeal Registration No: PCCFO/A/2025/60044
• Commission Case No: S09/A/0966/2025

Would you like me to draft a “Rejoinder” for your upcoming hearing on 07.07.2025? This document will specifically challenge the DFO’s use of Rule 2(b)(4). It will argue against their justification for denying you the reason for the posting.