GenZ whistleblower claims CBSE cooked tender to pick tainted OSM partner over TCS
Controversy over CBSE's On-Screen Marking system deepened after a 17-year-old's investigation alleged that tender norms were diluted and security safeguards scaled back, raising questions about how Coempt Eduteck secured the contract
A 17-year-old Class 12 student has become the unexpected face of the CBSE OSM controversy.
After analysing CBSE’s tender documents, Sarthak Sidhant alleged that the board relaxed key eligibility criteria and reduced certain security requirements in the tender process that ultimately led to Hyderabad-based Coempt Eduteck securing the On-Screen Marking (OSM) contract.
His findings have rapidly gained traction online, shifting the debate beyond complaints of blurred answer sheets, missing pages and alleged evaluation errors to questions about transparency in the award of the contract itself.
The post was subsequently amplified by another user, who broke down the student's key findings in detail.
What began as a student's document-based investigation has since entered the political mainstream, with leaders including Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi amplifying concerns around the OSM rollout and demanding answers over the tender process.
The controversy has now evolved from a dispute over marks and evaluation to a wider debate over accountability, procurement practices and public trust in one of India’s most important education institutions.
CBSE has previously denied allegations of irregularities in the tender process.
India Today has reached out to the board for a response to the specific claims raised in Sarthak’s investigation. No response had been received till the time of publication.
The student, Sarthak, a Class 12 candidate from the 2025-26 batch and one of the approximately 17 lakh students whose answer sheets were processed through CBSE's OSM system, claims to have spent days analysing CBSE's procurement records and evaluation tenders.
According to his post, Sarthak allegedly "scraped and reviewed all 576 CBSE tenders available in the public domain" and tracked changes made across multiple versions of the tender related to the OSM project.
THE COMPANY AT THE CENTRE
Sarthak's investigation claims that the contract for scanning and evaluating answer sheets under the OSM system was awarded to Coempt Eduteck.
He further alleged that Coempt Eduteck was previously known as Globarena Technologies, a company that had been associated with the Telangana Intermediate Examination controversy in 2019. During that episode, software and evaluation-related issues reportedly affected the results of thousands of students, triggering public outrage and government scrutiny.
According to Sarthak's post, Globarena later rebranded as Coempt Eduteck.
His central claim is that a series of modifications made to CBSE's tender requirements between successive bidding rounds may have altered the eligibility criteria in ways that ultimately benefited Coempt.
THREE TENDER ROUNDS
According to the investigation done by Sarthak, the tender process unfolded in three stages.
The first tender, reportedly issued in February 2025, allegedly disappeared from the public Government e-Marketplace (GeM) records. Sarthak claims he was unable to locate it despite reviewing CBSE's tender archive.
The second tender, issued in May 2025, reportedly attracted four bidders, including Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Coempt. According to the student's findings, all participating companies failed the technical evaluation, leading to the tender being cancelled.
A third tender was subsequently issued in August 2025, with Coempt Eduteck eventually emerging as the successful bidder.
ALLEGED CHANGES IN TENDER CONDITIONS
Sarthak's analysis identifies several modifications between the second and third versions of the tender.
According to his findings:
- Clauses disqualifying companies with histories of incomplete projects, abandoned contracts, or financial weaknesses were removed.
- The wording related to blacklisting was altered from " companies blacklisted earlier" to " companies currently blacklisted."
- The turnover requirement remained at Rs 50 crore, a threshold that Sarthak claims Coempt narrowly met.
- The mandatory Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) certification requirement was reportedly reduced from Level 5 to Level 3.
- The cooling-off period for engaging retired CBSE officials was reduced from two years to one year.
- Experience requirements were modified from handling projects involving at least five lakh students to broader cumulative project experience criteria.
- Ownership requirements for data centres were replaced with provisions allowing third-party cloud infrastructure.
- Clauses requiring ownership or control of complete software source code were removed.
- A corrigendum allegedly modified provisions relating to future blacklisting by CBSE.
- Penalty provisions shifted focus from scanning errors and quality issues towards delays in project execution.
- The previously stated maximum error rate of 0.5 per cent was removed.
- Technical specifications for scanning infrastructure were reportedly relaxed.
- Certain cybersecurity and testing requirements, including vulnerability assessment and penetration testing certifications, were allegedly altered or removed.
Sarthak argues that these changes collectively lowered several technical and operational barriers that had existed in earlier versions of the tender.
SECURITY CONCERNS RESURFACE
The investigation also references findings by another researcher, Nisarga, who had earlier raised concerns about potential vulnerabilities in the OSM platform.
According to Sarthak, the tender modifications may help explain how such vulnerabilities could have existed within the system. He argues that changes related to security certifications, software ownership requirements, data infrastructure, and quality assurance standards may warrant further examination.
While the claims made in the investigation have generated significant discussion online, neither CBSE nor Coempt Eduteck had publicly responded to the specific allegations raised in Sarthak's post at the time of writing.
The controversy continues to fuel debate over transparency, accountability, and the safeguards required when large-scale public examinations transition to digital evaluation systems.
A 17-year-old Class 12 student has become the unexpected face of the CBSE OSM controversy.
After analysing CBSE’s tender documents, Sarthak Sidhant alleged that the board relaxed key eligibility criteria and reduced certain security requirements in the tender process that ultimately led to Hyderabad-based Coempt Eduteck securing the On-Screen Marking (OSM) contract.
His findings have rapidly gained traction online, shifting the debate beyond complaints of blurred answer sheets, missing pages and alleged evaluation errors to questions about transparency in the award of the contract itself.
The post was subsequently amplified by another user, who broke down the student's key findings in detail.
What began as a student's document-based investigation has since entered the political mainstream, with leaders including Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi amplifying concerns around the OSM rollout and demanding answers over the tender process.
The controversy has now evolved from a dispute over marks and evaluation to a wider debate over accountability, procurement practices and public trust in one of India’s most important education institutions.
CBSE has previously denied allegations of irregularities in the tender process.
India Today has reached out to the board for a response to the specific claims raised in Sarthak’s investigation. No response had been received till the time of publication.
The student, Sarthak, a Class 12 candidate from the 2025-26 batch and one of the approximately 17 lakh students whose answer sheets were processed through CBSE's OSM system, claims to have spent days analysing CBSE's procurement records and evaluation tenders.
According to his post, Sarthak allegedly "scraped and reviewed all 576 CBSE tenders available in the public domain" and tracked changes made across multiple versions of the tender related to the OSM project.
THE COMPANY AT THE CENTRE
Sarthak's investigation claims that the contract for scanning and evaluating answer sheets under the OSM system was awarded to Coempt Eduteck.
He further alleged that Coempt Eduteck was previously known as Globarena Technologies, a company that had been associated with the Telangana Intermediate Examination controversy in 2019. During that episode, software and evaluation-related issues reportedly affected the results of thousands of students, triggering public outrage and government scrutiny.
According to Sarthak's post, Globarena later rebranded as Coempt Eduteck.
His central claim is that a series of modifications made to CBSE's tender requirements between successive bidding rounds may have altered the eligibility criteria in ways that ultimately benefited Coempt.
THREE TENDER ROUNDS
According to the investigation done by Sarthak, the tender process unfolded in three stages.
The first tender, reportedly issued in February 2025, allegedly disappeared from the public Government e-Marketplace (GeM) records. Sarthak claims he was unable to locate it despite reviewing CBSE's tender archive.
The second tender, issued in May 2025, reportedly attracted four bidders, including Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Coempt. According to the student's findings, all participating companies failed the technical evaluation, leading to the tender being cancelled.
A third tender was subsequently issued in August 2025, with Coempt Eduteck eventually emerging as the successful bidder.
ALLEGED CHANGES IN TENDER CONDITIONS
Sarthak's analysis identifies several modifications between the second and third versions of the tender.
According to his findings:
- Clauses disqualifying companies with histories of incomplete projects, abandoned contracts, or financial weaknesses were removed.
- The wording related to blacklisting was altered from " companies blacklisted earlier" to " companies currently blacklisted."
- The turnover requirement remained at Rs 50 crore, a threshold that Sarthak claims Coempt narrowly met.
- The mandatory Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) certification requirement was reportedly reduced from Level 5 to Level 3.
- The cooling-off period for engaging retired CBSE officials was reduced from two years to one year.
- Experience requirements were modified from handling projects involving at least five lakh students to broader cumulative project experience criteria.
- Ownership requirements for data centres were replaced with provisions allowing third-party cloud infrastructure.
- Clauses requiring ownership or control of complete software source code were removed.
- A corrigendum allegedly modified provisions relating to future blacklisting by CBSE.
- Penalty provisions shifted focus from scanning errors and quality issues towards delays in project execution.
- The previously stated maximum error rate of 0.5 per cent was removed.
- Technical specifications for scanning infrastructure were reportedly relaxed.
- Certain cybersecurity and testing requirements, including vulnerability assessment and penetration testing certifications, were allegedly altered or removed.
Sarthak argues that these changes collectively lowered several technical and operational barriers that had existed in earlier versions of the tender.
SECURITY CONCERNS RESURFACE
The investigation also references findings by another researcher, Nisarga, who had earlier raised concerns about potential vulnerabilities in the OSM platform.
According to Sarthak, the tender modifications may help explain how such vulnerabilities could have existed within the system. He argues that changes related to security certifications, software ownership requirements, data infrastructure, and quality assurance standards may warrant further examination.
While the claims made in the investigation have generated significant discussion online, neither CBSE nor Coempt Eduteck had publicly responded to the specific allegations raised in Sarthak's post at the time of writing.
The controversy continues to fuel debate over transparency, accountability, and the safeguards required when large-scale public examinations transition to digital evaluation systems.
