Guwahati: The Assam government has defended the re-engagement of retired Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer M.K. Yadava as Special Chief Secretary (Forest), arguing before the Gauhati High Court that the challenge to his appointment is not maintainable and that the decision was taken in accordance with the state’s administrative guidelines.
The Gauhati High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on Friday, November 6, 2026.
In an affidavit-in-opposition filed in PIL No. 57 of 2026, the Personnel Department has also strongly defended Yadava’s decision to permit the diversion of forest land in Geleky Reserved Forest in Sivasagar and Innerline Reserved Forest in Hailakandi for the establishment of Assam Police commando battalion camps.
The affidavit, sworn by Bijit Kumar Borthakur, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel Department, has urged the High Court to dismiss the public interest litigation filed by environmental activist Rohit Choudhury, with exemplary costs.
The petition challenges the Office Memorandum dated February 16, 2024, the Cabinet decision of May 13, 2026, and the subsequent notification dated May 14, 2026, through which Yadava was re-engaged as Special Chief Secretary (Forest).
Govt questions maintainability of PIL
Contending that the present petition is not maintainable, the government pointed out that Choudhury had earlier challenged Yadava’s engagement and re-engagement through PIL No. 18 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court on March 18, 2025.
The court had then held that public interest litigation in service matters was generally not maintainable except in cases seeking a writ of quo warranto, which could be issued only when an appointment violated statutory provisions or rules.
The government argued that the petitioner had abandoned his earlier prayer for a writ of quo warranto in the present proceedings and was now attempting to challenge the administrative decision-making process through a writ of certiorari.
According to the affidavit, Choudhury was neither a member of the relevant service cadre nor a potential candidate for the post of Special Chief Secretary (Forest), and therefore lacked the locus standi to question Yadava’s appointment.
It further argued that the petitioner’s attempt to challenge the same administrative decision on a different legal ground amounted to reopening an issue already decided by the High Court.
Govt defends February 2024 Office Memo
Defending the Office Memorandum dated February 16, 2024, the Personnel Department maintained that the amendment did not remove the substantive safeguards governing the contractual engagement of retired government officers.
The earlier guidelines, issued on July 18, 2018, provided for the engagement of retired officers only under rare and exceptional circumstances and required their continuation to be based on satisfactory performance.
The government contended that these two requirements remained unchanged under the February 2024 memorandum.
It argued that the modification merely changed the administrative procedure for processing such proposals.
Under the revised arrangement, proposals approved by the Chief Minister need not be placed before the State Empowered Committee for prior consideration. However, the Administrative Department is required to inform the committee, which must take note of the engagement and include it in its meeting minutes.
The affidavit maintained that the Chief Minister’s approval was not a lesser form of scrutiny than that of the committee, whose recommendations themselves required the Chief Minister’s approval to become effective.
The government further stated that Yadava’s latest re-engagement was made following the approval of the state Cabinet on May 13, 2026.
His engagement is contractual, with remuneration fixed at his last pay and allowances at the time of retirement, minus pension. The affidavit also stated that the arrangement could be terminated by the appointing authority with one month’s notice or payment in lieu thereof.
Govt cites forest encroachment to defend diversion of land
A significant portion of the affidavit deals with allegations concerning the diversion of forest land for the establishment of commando battalion camps in Geleky Reserved Forest and Innerline Reserved Forest.
The government stated that Yadava, who was then the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, had granted permission for the diversion of 28 hectares in Geleky Reserved Forest on November 15, 2022, and 11.5 hectares at Damchera in Innerline Reserved Forest on September 28, 2023.
It argued that both permissions were granted under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as it existed at the time, before the amended Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam and Rules came into force on December 1, 2023.
The affidavit stated that the Central government subsequently granted Stage-I approval on January 21, 2025, followed by final Stage-II approval on February 20, 2025, after the Assam government submitted its compliance report.
The approved diversion in Geleky was reduced from the initially proposed 28 hectares to 26.1 hectares, while the 11.5-hectare diversion at Damchera was also granted final approval.
The government maintained that the commando battalion camps were established primarily to protect forests facing severe encroachment and armed aggression along Assam’s interstate borders.
According to the affidavit, Geleky Reserved Forest, which covers approximately 5,929 hectares, has witnessed extensive encroachment and deforestation.
It claimed that nearly 4,000 hectares of its once evergreen and semi-evergreen forest had been encroached upon and deforested, allegedly with the assistance of armed miscreants from across the Nagaland border.
At least 20 villages have reportedly been established inside the notified reserve forest, with large stretches of forest land converted into commercial plantations of tea, rubber and areca nut, the government alleged.
The affidavit also highlighted the situation in Innerline Reserved Forest, where it claimed that 6,304 hectares of tree cover were lost between 2001 and 2023, averaging 274.08 hectares annually.
Citing Global Forest Watch data, the government said the annual loss of tree cover increased considerably in recent years, from 241 hectares in 2018 to 836 hectares in 2023.
The figures for the intervening years were 372 hectares in 2019, 530 hectares in 2020, 672 hectares in 2021 and 707 hectares in 2022.
The affidavit further referred to an armed attack on July 26, 2021, when six Assam Police personnel were killed and the Superintendent of Police was permanently disabled after armed miscreants opened fire on police and forest personnel in Innerline Reserved Forest.
Govt cites NGT order to counter allegations
In another significant submission, the government accused the petitioner of suppressing material facts, particularly the final order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on May 30, 2025.
The affidavit stated that the NGT’s Principal Bench in New Delhi had disposed of Original Application No. 61 of 2024, along with an interlocutory application filed by Choudhury, concerning the allegations surrounding forest land diversion in Innerline Reserved Forest.
According to the government, the tribunal had noted that clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, existed in favour of the Assam Police Housing Corporation Limited and concluded that no further interference in the original application was required.
The Personnel Department alleged that the petitioner had relied on earlier interim orders and a show-cause notice issued in the same proceedings but deliberately withheld the final NGT order while filing the present PIL.
The affidavit also referred to two communications dated November 12 and 13, 2024, issued by the Environment and Forest Department to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
According to the government, these communications, described as detailed action-taken reports, had conveyed the state’s position that the permissions granted by Yadava were in the interest of forest protection and conservation.
The department had also stated that there was no question of taking action against the officer as he had acted bona fide in the interest of the state and the protection of its forests.
Govt rejects link between forest diversion and Geleky floods
The affidavit has also rejected the petitioner’s attempt to link the diversion of 26.1 hectares of forest land in Geleky with the floods reported in the area in July 2026.
Referring to a newspaper report dated July 19, 2026, the government argued that the flooding had been attributed to incessant rainfall, a sharp rise in the water level of the Doikhana river, the breach of a newly constructed embankment and water flowing in from neighbouring Nagaland.
It maintained that there was no material establishing any connection between the diversion of forest land for the commando battalion camp and the reported inundation.
The government also claimed that the establishment of battalion camps in the two reserved forests was not an arbitrary decision but was based on provisions contained in the approved working plans of the Hailakandi and Sivasagar forest divisions.
Govet alleges PIL targets Yadava’s professional reputation
The Personnel Department has further questioned the petitioner’s bona fides, referring to the earlier litigation concerning Yadava’s tenure and allegations relating to the 2022 rhino population estimation exercise in Kaziranga National Park.
It alleged that the present PIL was directed more at damaging Yadava’s professional reputation and career than pursuing a genuine public interest cause.
The affidavit claimed that while the petitioner had focused on the diversion of approximately 37.6 hectares of forest land for the commando camps, he had failed to raise concerns about the alleged destruction of nearly 4,000 hectares of forest in Geleky and extensive forest loss in Innerline Reserved Forest.
The government also referred to Yadava’s role in leading eviction drives to free forest land from encroachment in different parts of Assam.
The matter is separate from another petition filed by Amarjyoti Choudhury, challenging the legal authority under which MK Yadava continues to serve as Special Chief Secretary (Forest), Assam, with “full Financial and Administrative Powers”.
The Amarjyoti Choudhury petition was being heard by a different bench of the Gauhati High Court. Justice Sanjay Medhi adjourned that matter on Wednesday, November 4, until November 11, 2026.