Akhil Rajasthan Rajya Ayush Nurses Mahasangh v. State of Rajasthan Another) was filed by the Federation Association of employees

Mohan Lal Gehlot S/o Shri Ramjilal, Aged About 53 Years, Senior Ayurved Compounder, Resident Of Village Higotiya, Tehsil Lavaan, District Dausa, At Present Posted Rajasthan Ayurved Hospital, Dhingariya, Dausa.

3. Jairam Gurjar S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Gurjar, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of VPO Dev Ka Harwada, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur, At Present Posted At Government Ayush Dispensary, Pilwa Road, Chandwaji, Jaipur.

4. Bajrang Lal S/o Shri Ranjeet, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of VPO Garinda, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar, At Present Homeopathy Compounder.

5. Ratan Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of 803, Mukhyamantri Sikhshak Pahari Awaas Yojana, Pratap Nagar, Sector 26, Jaipur, At Present Junior Ayurved Compounder, Rajasthan Ayurved Hospital, Laxminaryan Puri, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Directorate of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. Director, Directorate of Ayurved, Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Dharmendra Petitioner No. 1 present For Respondents : None present. in person. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment [2025:RJ-JP:37165] (2 of 4) [CW-13853/2025] 12/09/2025

2. Petitioner No. 1 appeared in person. The petitioners, who are employees of Respondent Ayurved Department of Government of Rajasthan have filed this joint writ petition, in respect of 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. Following prayer has been made in the instant writ petition: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent department be directed to roll back the implementation of the "RAJSSO-AMS" application for recording the daily attendance of the petitioner employees of the respondent department, and; (b) Grant such further relief(s) which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner; and (c) Costs of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner'”

3. With almost similar facts and grounds, SB Civil Writ Petition no. 13703/2025 (Akhil Rajasthan Rajya Ayush Nurses Mahasangh vs State of Rajasthan & Another) was filed by the Federation / Association of employees of Respondent- department, which has been decided by this court vide order dated 10.09.2025 in following manner: The petitioner has urged that the compulsory use "2. 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 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 3. 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.

4. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37165] (3 of 4) [CW-13853/2025] 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 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.

7. 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. In light of the above, the writ petition is 8. 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 economically weaker employees for purchase of smartphones required for official use. The respondent–Department (iv) 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. 9. Pending applications if any stand dismissed." [2025:RJ-JP:37165] (4 of 4) [CW-13853/2025]

4. Hence, in view of above order dated 10.09.2025 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition no. 13703/2025, the present writ petition also stands dismissed.

5. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI /32 (ANAND SHARMA),J