🚨 Illegal Posting of Deputy Ranger as Ranger: A Second Appeal Under the RTI Act, 2005

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of India’s democracy. It empowers citizens to hold public authorities accountable. However, obtaining information is often fraught with bureaucratic hurdles and jurisdictional disputes. Recently, Yogi M. P. Singh filed a second appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). This appeal highlights a concerning struggle to secure crucial details, especially regarding the illegal posting of deputy ranger as ranger. The focus is on postings and adherence to policy within the Forest Department of Uttar Pradesh.

---

🏛️ The Core of the Appeal: Postings in the Forest Department (Illegal Posting of Deputy Ranger as Ranger)

The appeal is registered under File Number S01/A/0526/2025. It is scheduled for hearing in Court S-1 on 24/07/2025. The case involves six specific points. These points concern information requested from the Public Information Officer (PIO), Office of Forest and Wildlife, Gorakhpur.

Key Information Sought by the Appellant

1. Details of Rangers Without Range Charge: The names and current postings of Rangers across the Forest Department. These are Rangers who have not been assigned range charge.
2. Reason for Deputy Ranger’s Range Charge: We must justify Deputy Ranger Shri Jagdamba Pathak’s extended charge of the Baki Range. We need to explain the length of time he continued in that role. We must explain why Deputy Ranger Shri Jagdamba Pathak continued to hold charge of the Baki Range. The duration was too long. We request an explanation for this situation. This charge lasted for four years and invokes the ‘Right to Reason’ under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
3. Supervising Authority for Ranger Postings: The name and designation of the government personnel who supervise Ranger postings. The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of Gorakhpur mentioned that the government handles such postings.
4. Demand Letter for Baki Range Vacancy: The local office will prepare a demand letter. This letter will fill the Ranger vacancy in the Baki Range. This position has been open for four years.
5. Ranger Cadre Strength: The Forest Department notes the total number of sanctioned posts for Rangers. It lists the total number of Rangers currently working. Additionally, a list of Deputy Rangers holding Ranger charge is provided, including their names and the duration of their charge.
6. Transfer Policy Adherence: The government may have overlooked its transfer policy for a specific reason. This reason relates to granting a “plum posting” to Shri Jagdamba Pathak.

This appeal, therefore, serves as a test case for transparency in government personnel management. It also tests the application of administrative rules. This is especially true concerning prolonged temporary charge assignments.

---

🛑 The Divisional Forest Officer’s Denial and Shifting of Responsibility (Illegal Posting of Deputy Ranger as Ranger)

The response from the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Gorakhpur, outlined a complete denial of all six points. The officer primarily cited a lack of jurisdiction. They also referenced legal exemptions under the RTI rules.

DFO Gorakhpur’s Grounds for Denial

• Information: The DFO stated that their office does not maintain information about all Rangers. This applies to the entire state.( Point 1) They do not keep this information locally. Additionally, information about the total sanctioned posts (Point 5) is also not kept there. They directed the appellant to the Principal Chief Forest Conservator and Head of Department (PCCFO/HOD), Lucknow.
• Transfer/Posting Handled by Higher Authority (Points 3, 6): The DFO confirmed this procedure. Ranger transfers and postings occur at the Uttar Pradesh Government level. Specifically, this is within Forest Section-1 and the PCCFO/HOD. This confirms the matter’s connection to the highest departmental and government levels.
• Exemption from Providing Reasons (Points 2, 6): The most significant denial involved Rule 2(b)(4). This is part of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015. The text advises against demanding justification. This applies when you decide whether to do or not do any work. The DFO argued that Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act only mandates providing reasons. These reasons are for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions. The organisation creates these for affected persons. Therefore, it does not apply to the appellant’s query about the Deputy Ranger’s continued charge.
• Report Sent Monthly (Point 4)The Regional Forest Officers send their monthly report to the DFO. The appellant interprets this as confirmation that higher authorities were aware of the situation.

The appellant noted that for almost all denied points, they simultaneously sought the information. They transferred it to the PCCFO/HOD, Lucknow, with registration number PCCFO/R/2025/80095. This demonstrated an exhaustive attempt to follow the information trail. (Illegal Posting of Deputy Ranger as Ranger)

---

⚖️ The Appellant’s Submissions: A Quest for Accountability (Illegal Posting of Deputy Ranger as Ranger)

In the appeal to the UPIC, Yogi M. P. Singh robustly challenged the DFO’s repeated defense, focusing on the core issue of jurisdiction and legal obligation.

Challenging the DFO’s Stance (Illegal Posting of Deputy Ranger as Ranger)

• The Contradiction of Jurisdiction: The DFO claimed that the government, PCCFO, and HOD handle matters of posting and charge. Despite this, the DFO repeatedly attempted to explain why they kept Shri Jagdamba Pathak in charge. The DFO also justified the refusal to provide reasons under the RTI Rules. The appellant logically questions, “How can the Divisional Forest Officer Gorakhpur clarify this? It is not concerned with his working.” (Illegal Posting of Deputy Ranger as Ranger)
• The Right to Reason (Section 4(1)(d)): The appellant is essentially arguing for a broader interpretation of accountability under Section 4(1)(d). The DFO limits the ‘affected persons’ clause. However, the spirit of the RTI Act mandates transparency in administrative decisions. This is especially true for decisions potentially violating transfer policy and contributing to prolonged vacancies.
• Fixing Accountability: The appellant primarily prays for the UPIC to serve notice. This notice should go to the correct custodian of the information—the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HOD, Lucknow. This ensures that the RTI Act, 2005, holds individuals accountable. The DFO’s letter clearly states that the government closely connects to the matter. It also directly involves the principal chief conservator/HOD in Lucknow. The appellant argues that this connection should compel the Commission to direct the highest relevant authority to furnish the information..

The second appeal is not merely about documents. It is a critical attempt to expose and correct alleged procedural irregularities. It also addresses the violation of the transfer policy within a key government department. This appeal demands that senior officials take responsibility for failing to disclose information. Such information is demonstrably available at the state level. People will closely watch the outcome of the hearing on 24/07/2025, as it matters for government transparency. It will be important for the practical implementation of the RTI Act.

---

noticecumlettdfo