public domain. However, each
candidate was apprised with his marks via SMS. In its reply, the appellant
submitted that the SMS did not specify ... name were considered to be sufficient
information while disclosing marks. Accordingly, SMS's were sent to every
candidate consisting of aforesaid information. He further
points are
given below:
2. Provide the rules and regulations applicable for SMS and MMS services by
the telecom companies respectively.
3. Provide the maximum ... character limits for SMS and MMS respectively.
1
4. Provide whether the SMS of characters more than 160, can be converted
into
which the CPPC Centre, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi was shifted
to SMS Highway Jaipur and the states covered under Jaipur centre.
Page ... After six months of receipt of revised PPO, by SBI, Chandni Chowk/ SMS
Highway Jaipur
(b) Cases disposed of after three months to six months
order dated 30.11.2018 stated as follows: "Sending information on marks,
through SMS, to all individual is already in process."
Grounds for Second Appeal ... Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he has received a text/SMS message on 26.11.2018 and
on 27.11.2018 from "AD-CCAGUJ", wherein
vide order dated 30.11.2018,
stated that sending information on marks, through SMS, to all individual is already
in process.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant ... Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that although the SMS consisting of marks was received
by him, the said SMS did not specify
promotion orders issued based on the selections
conducted in respect of ASMs/SMs in each grade from 1st January 1979 to
31st December ... complete promotion orders issued other than on selections in
respect of ASMs/SMs in each grade from 1st January 1979 to 31st December
that other details
such as the transcripts of the calls/ SMS; personal details of the persons to
whom calls were made were not desired
serving, along with
necessary person endorsement/ acknowledgement.
c. lf served by SMS and or email - SMS copy and or email copy, date
along with necessary
conference and the respondent did not respond to the call and an
SMS sent for attending the hearing was also not responded.
5.1. The appellant
same was also informed to the account holder through
the SMS. They contended that minimum balance was charged in the appellant's account
