![\"'Using](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-131407561,imgsize-15792,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/1280720-2026-05-30t154612317.jpg\" "\\"Sarthak")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nA Class 12 student’s investigation into CBSE’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) contract has gone viral. The blog, authored by Sarthak Sidhant, examines tender documents related to the OSM contract awarded for the evaluation of Class 12 answer sheets. In the post, the student alleges that changes made to tender conditions over multiple rounds may have benefited Hyderabad-based Coempt Eduteck, which ultimately secured the contract.The blog compares different versions of the tender documents and argues that several eligibility and evaluation criteria were modified before the final award of the contract.Sidhant says he began studying the documents after concerns were raised by students over the implementation of the OSM system. His post, which runs into several thousand words, cites procurement records, tender clauses and financial disclosures to support his analysis. The student has called for greater transparency and has asked CBSE to clarify the reasons behind the changes.Several opposition leaders shared the blog on social media. Among them was Rahul Gandhi, who claimed that the student’s findings raised serious questions about the tender process and called for an independent judicial inquiry.In a social media post, Rahul wrote, “17-year-old Sarthak Sidhant has exposed how CBSE manipulated its own selection process to benefit COEMPT, using CBSE\u2019s own documents. The details in his blog reveal how CBSE changed the RFP to unduly benefit COEMPT, at the cost of TCS. He has revealed the hollowness of Dharmendra Pradhan ji\u2019s denials. The PM remains silent, as usual. The question is simple: who are they protecting, and why?”The controversy comes amid ongoing discussions around, CBSE’s digital evaluation system, which was introduced for the assessment of Class 12 answer sheets. The board has previously defended the system and rejected allegations that it compromised the accuracy or fairness of evaluation.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n