![\"Rahul](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-131390440,imgsize-23954,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/rahul-gandhi.jpg\" "\\"CBSE")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The controversy surrounding the Central Board of Secondary Education\u2019s (CBSE\u2019s) On-Screen Marking (OSM) system has now entered an even more politically explosive phase, with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi directly questioning how the digital evaluation contract was awarded and whether tender conditions were gradually relaxed to favour a particular company.In a strongly worded post on X on Friday, Rahul Gandhi accused CBSE of repeatedly diluting technical requirements after failing to secure qualified bidders during earlier tender rounds. He alleged that the eventual winner, COEMPT, only qualified after critical standards linked to scanning quality, software maturity and infrastructure requirements were lowered.\u201cRead this story. Carefully,\u201d Rahul Gandhi wrote, before laying out a detailed attack on the tendering process behind the OSM rollout.\u201cCBSE called for OSM tenders thrice. Zero bids the first time. No qualified bidder the second time. And finally, the technical bar was lowered until COEMPT could clear it,\u201d he wrote.The remarks come at a time when CBSE is already facing mounting scrutiny over complaints linked to the digital evaluation system introduced for the 2026 Class 12 board examinations. Students across the country have alleged blurred answer sheets, missing pages, mismatched scanned copies and technical failures during the re-evaluation process.What makes the latest political attack significant is that it shifts the controversy away from operational glitches alone and towards the larger question of how the system itself was procured and implemented.\u201cThe rules kept changing until someone qualified\u201d<\/span>According to documents reviewed by Hindustan Times and details cited by Rahul Gandhi, CBSE floated tenders for the OSM project three separate times before finally awarding the contract.The first round reportedly received no bids. In the second round, no bidder qualified technically. It was only during the third tender process, issued in August 2025 \u2014 barely six months before nationwide implementation \u2014 that several key conditions were modified.Those changes are now at the centre of the controversy.Rahul Gandhi alleged that the Board progressively lowered technical safeguards to ensure the process finally produced a winner.\u201cScanning resolution cut. Robotic scanner requirement dropped. CMMI certification lowered from Level 5 to Level 3. Penalties for errors in answer sheets removed,\u201d he wrote.The Congress leader also pointed out that Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), one of India\u2019s largest IT companies, had reportedly qualified technically in the final round but still lost the contract to COEMPT during the financial evaluation stage.\u201cTCS, India\u2019s biggest IT services company, qualified in the third round too. TCS lost. COEMPT \u2014 a company with a spectacular track record of failure \u2014 won,\u201d Rahul Gandhi alleged.The post immediately intensified political pressure on both CBSE and the Union education ministry, particularly because the allegations now directly connect the procurement process with the operational complaints students are currently raising.\u201cAnd what are CBSE students complaining about today?\u201d Rahul Gandhi asked. \u201cBadly scanned answer sheets. Missing pages. A broken evaluation portal.\u201dWhat exactly changed in the tenders?<\/span>The details emerging from the tender documents paint a picture of significant modifications between the earlier failed rounds and the final successful bid process.One of the most debated changes relates to scanning resolution quality.Earlier tender conditions reportedly required answer sheets to be scanned at a minimum resolution of 300 DPI or higher. In the final August tender, this was relaxed to \u201cat least 200 DPI, provided the content remains clearly legible.\u201dThat detail has acquired fresh significance because poor scan quality is now one of the biggest complaints being raised by students seeking access to scanned answer sheets.Several students have alleged that portions of their answers appeared blurred, unclear or incomplete during re-evaluation.Teachers who participated in the digital evaluation process had also privately raised similar concerns earlier.As previously reported, evaluators claimed they frequently encountered blurry scans, disappearing pages, incomplete supplementary sheets and server instability while checking Class 12 answer books digitally.Another major change involved scanning infrastructure requirements.The February and May tenders reportedly mandated \u201cautomated or robotic high-speed scanning infrastructure\u201d and specified that answer books should be scanned without cutting the spine of the documents.The August tender removed the robotic scanning requirement altogether.Similarly, the mandatory Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) certification \u2014 an internationally recognised software process maturity standard \u2014 was reportedly reduced from Level 5 to Level 3.This effectively widened the pool of companies eligible to participate.Penalty structures also underwent dramatic changes.Earlier tender drafts reportedly imposed extremely severe penalties for operational mistakes, including fines of Rs 20,000 per incorrectly scanned copy and Rs 50,000 for unscanned booklets.By the August tender, the penalty system had shifted away from per-copy errors and focused more broadly on operational deadlines.\u201cTeachers had warned the Board\u201d<\/span>The controversy has also revived concerns over whether CBSE rushed the OSM rollout despite internal warnings from evaluators and schools.Rahul Gandhi claimed teachers involved in trial runs had cautioned the Board that the system required significantly more preparation before nationwide implementation.\u201cTeachers had warned CBSE that the OSM system needed at least a year or two for further preparation before nationwide implementation, yet it was rushed through,\u201d he wrote.That claim mirrors concerns repeatedly voiced by evaluators over the past few weeks.Several teachers involved in the digital checking process had earlier said training lasted barely a week and that many examiners struggled to adapt to prolonged screen-based evaluation under tight timelines.One Delhi-based evaluator had earlier said: \u201cTechnology is not the problem. Poor preparation is.\u201dAnother teacher described the transition as \u201crushed from the beginning\u201d.\u201cYou cannot suddenly shift lakhs of answer sheets into a fully digital environment without years of calibration and testing,\u201d the evaluator had said.CBSE says due process was followed<\/span>CBSE officials have firmly denied allegations that tender conditions were diluted to favour any specific company.According to officials quoted in the reports, the earlier tenders failed because of operational and procedural limitations within the original Request for Proposal (RFP) structure.A senior Board official reportedly stated that the changes introduced in the third round were intended to make the process \u201cmore practical\u201d and ensure successful participation.\u201cThis should not be viewed as a rushed undertaking, but rather as rectifying shortcomings of previous rounds in order to achieve superior results,\u201d the official said.CBSE has also defended the procurement process by stating that the company was selected under government procurement norms and had not been blacklisted by any government agency.\u201cWe adhered to government guidelines and regulations while selecting the company through the tender process,\u201d a Board official said.The Board has further stated that no payment has yet been released to the vendor and that all operational issues, penalties and complaints will be reviewed after completion of the re-evaluation process and supplementary examinations.\u201cDue process is not accountability\u201d<\/span>Rahul Gandhi, however, rejected CBSE\u2019s explanation, arguing that procedural compliance alone does not answer the larger questions being raised.\u201cPradhan ji and CBSE say \u2018due process was followed.\u2019 That is not an answer, that is not accountability,\u201d he wrote.\u201cThe question is whether the contract was honestly awarded to the best company which could do the job correctly.\u201dThe Congress leader also renewed his demand for an independent judicial investigation into the entire matter.\u201cI have, from day one, demanded an independent judicial probe. Expand it from CBSE to every contract awarded to COEMPT. Our youth deserve the truth,\u201d he wrote.The political escalation comes only a day after Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan publicly acknowledged the seriousness of the controversy and took responsibility for the inconvenience caused to students.\u201cI myself take responsibility on behalf of the government for any inconvenience,\u201d Pradhan had said while urging political parties not to increase students\u2019 stress.But with fresh questions now emerging around the tendering process itself, the controversy appears far from over.Because the debate is no longer only about blurred answer sheets or technical glitches.It is increasingly about whether India\u2019s largest school examination reform was implemented before the system \u2014 or the country \u2014 was truly ready for it.<\/div>\n