Akhil Rajasthan Rajya Ayush Nurses Mahasangh, State Office v. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Ayush
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The scope of judicial review over policy matters has been settled in catena of decisions. In State of U.P. & Another v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that courts cannot sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions…
- Para 99. Pending applications if any stand dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI /36 (ANAND SHARMA),J
Judgment
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Ayush Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Directorate of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner
: Mr. Hari Kishan Saini Advocate. For Respondents : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 10/09/2025
The petitioner–Federation of All Rajasthan State Ayush Nurses, through its President has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 29.08.2025 issued by the respondents mandating attendance of employees through the “RajSSO-AMS” Mobile App w.e.f. 01.09.2025.
The petitioner has urged that the compulsory use of the App infringes the fundamental rights of employees under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, imposes financial burden on employees lacking smartphones, compromises privacy [2025:RJ-JP:37380] (2 of 4) [CW-13703/2025] by continuous location tracking and does not account for the field- based nature of nurses’ duties, especially in rural and remote
I have gone through order dated 29.08.2025 and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The policy measure is intended to digitize attendance, curb absenteeism and ensure transparency and accountability in public administration. Needless to mention that technological advancement cannot be resisted on speculative grounds and the decision lies within the policy-making domain of the State.
The scope of judicial review over policy matters has been settled in catena of decisions. In State of U.P. & Another v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that courts cannot sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or violative of fundamental rights. Similarly, in Balco Employees’ Union (REGD.) v. Union of India & Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333, it was observed that policy decisions should be left to the wisdom of the executive.
Attendance and punctuality form part of service discipline and the State, as an employer, is competent to prescribe the manner in which the same shall be maintained. The use of digital technology through RajSSO-AMS App is aimed at efficiency, curbing malpractices and modernising governance. This Court finds no arbitrariness in the impugned measure.
The contention regarding violation of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also does not hold merit. The right to privacy, recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy & Another [2025:RJ-JP:37380] (3 of 4) [CW-13703/2025] v. Union of India & Others (2017) 10 SCC 1 is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted to serve legitimate State interests. Here, the data collected is confined to marking attendance within limited area/parameters and is directly connected to official duties. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate any likelihood of misuse of such data.
The plea of economic burden on account of smartphones and internet access also cannot be sustained. In Central Board of Secondary Education & Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 497, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that mere inconvenience or additional responsibility upon employees is not a ground to invalidate lawful policy measures. The State is entitled to modernise systems even if certain transitional difficulties arise.
Operative part
In light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, to ensure effective implementation of the policy without causing undue hardship to employees, the following directions are issued:
(i) The Respondent-Department shall organise training and orientation programmes of at least one day at district and block levels to familiarise all employees with the RajSSO-AMS App.
(ii) Adequate Wi-Fi facilities shall be provided in all offices, particularly in rural and remote areas to facilitate seamless attendance marking.
(iii) The State Government shall consider formulating a scheme for providing financial assistance or short term loans to [2025:RJ-JP:37380] (4 of 4) [CW-13703/2025] economically weaker employees for purchase of smartphones required for official use.
(iv) The respondent–Department shall ensure incorporation of data security safeguards in the system, limiting access strictly to authorised personnel.
(v) The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Principal Secretary, Ayush Department, Government of Rajasthan and the Director, Directorate of Ayurved, Ajmer for information and necessary compliance.
Pending applications if any stand dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI /36 (ANAND SHARMA),J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.