The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has faced intense national scrutiny following its decision to fully digitize the evaluation process for the Class 12 board examinations. The rollout of the new On-Screen Marking (OSM) system has triggered student protests, political debate, and multiple legal challenges.
In response to the backlash over technical glitches and opaque access, the education ministry announced that scanned copies of all student answer scripts will be made automatically available directly via DigiLocker starting next year.
The friction began shortly after the Class 12 results were announced on May 13, when a record 440,000 students applied for scanned copies of their evaluated sheets.
The system—managed via a platform called OnMark—reportedly forced examiners to evaluate blurry text and missing pages, leading to an overall 3.19% drop in the national pass rate. The Government School Teachers’ Association (GSTA) even demanded a rollback of warnings issued to teachers over the dip in grades, pointing the finger back at the technology.
The Vendor Controversy: How Coempt Won the Bid
A major political flashpoint has been the selection of Telangana-based vendor Coempt Edu Teck (formerly known as Globarena Technology). Opposition leaders, including Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, publicly called for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, pointing to a 2019 exam evaluation crisis linked to the vendor in Telangana.
Board officials defended the procurement process, clarifying that the contract was scrupulously awarded on December 5, 2025, through a Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) tender:
-
Relaxed Technical Benchmarks: After receiving no eligible takers in the first two rounds of bidding, CBSE modified the Request for Proposal (RFP) in August 2025. It lowered the required company maturity standard from CMMI Level 5 to CMMI Level 3, dropped the rule requiring robotic scanners, and lowered the minimum scanning threshold from 300 DPI to 200 DPI.
-
The Cost Divide: In the final round, only two tech firms qualified. Coempt dramatically undercut the competition, bidding ₹25.75 per answer copy compared to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), which quoted approximately ₹65 per copy.
Officials emphasized that despite past litigations, Coempt was never blacklisted by any government agency and currently holds a Level 5 process certification.
Penalties and Future Safeguards
While the board continues to investigate the gaps in infrastructure, it has frozen all payouts to the vendor. Contractual financial penalties are structured to penalize technical errors heavily:
What Students Should Do Now: The formal verification and re-evaluation process for aggrieved students opens on June 1. CBSE has stated that manual interventions will resolve any confirmed scanning mix-ups before college admissions peak.
