CBSE’s New Digital Evaluation System Under Fire After Answer Sheet Mix-Ups
The Central Board of Secondary Education’s newly launched digital assessment platform has encountered significant turbulence, with nearly two dozen reported cases of mismatched answer sheets surfacing on its On-Screen Marking (OSM) portal. Students who logged in to review their evaluated copies were startled to discover that the scanned documents displayed on the portal did not belong to them, triggering widespread concern across the country.
How the Mismatch Came to Light
The controversy first gained traction when a Class 12 student raised an alarm about his Physics answer sheet. After submitting his paper for revaluation, he noticed that the uploaded copy on the OSM portal featured handwriting and responses that were clearly not his own. His social media post quickly gained momentum, prompting several other students, including a girl named Sanjana, to come forward with similar complaints about their respective subjects.
As grievances multiplied, board officials reached out to the affected students and provided them with their original, correct answer sheets. The board has assured that these matters are being treated with the highest priority, though questions about the reliability of the entire digital framework continue to linger.
Scale of the Scanning Operation
This year marked the debut of the OSM system, under which the board undertook the massive task of digitizing student responses. According to sources, over 98 lakh answer sheets were scanned, amounting to roughly 40 crore pages of digital documentation. Given the sheer volume, technical anomalies were almost inevitable.
Reports indicate that approximately 68,000 answer sheets exhibited poor scan quality during the initial pass and had to be rescanned. However, even after the second attempt, around 13,000 copies failed to meet the required clarity standards and had to be processed manually. These figures have raised eyebrows about the preparedness and robustness of the system before its nationwide rollout.
Technical Experts Called In for Investigation
In response to the growing backlash, a comprehensive technical audit has been initiated. Specialists from the Indian Institutes of Technology in Madras and Kanpur, along with the Digital Infrastructure Corporation of India, have been roped in to examine the portal’s architecture, scanning protocols, and even payment gateway integration. The team is currently reviewing the system’s code and backend operations to identify vulnerabilities and prevent future discrepancies.
Officials have expressed optimism that the platform will be completely glitch-free by the next academic cycle, though critics remain skeptical given the current state of affairs.
Board Defends the Digital Transition
Despite the setbacks, board representatives have stood by the new technology, emphasizing its long-term benefits. They argue that digital evaluation enhances transparency and offers students the unprecedented advantage of viewing their own answer sheets post-assessment. According to officials, technology represents the future of examination processing, and initial hurdles are simply part of the learning curve.
Looking ahead, the board has announced plans to make scanned answer sheets available through DigiLocker starting next year. This would allow students to access their evaluated copies alongside their mark sheets, further streamlining the process. Officials maintain that while first-time implementations inevitably face challenges, the system will only grow stronger and more dependable with time.
Contract Award Sparks Political Controversy
Beyond the technical glitches, the process of awarding the OSM contract has itself become a flashpoint for political debate. Sources reveal that after three rounds of tendering, two companies emerged as technically qualified bidders: Coempt and Tata Consultancy Services. In the financial bidding stage, Coempt quoted approximately 24.75 rupees per answer sheet, while TCS proposed a significantly higher rate of around 65 to 66 rupees per sheet. Unsurprisingly, the contract was awarded to the lower bidder.
However, this decision has drawn sharp criticism from political quarters. Prominent opposition figures have questioned the selection of Coempt, pointing to its controversial track record under its former identity, Globarena. The scrutiny has intensified calls for greater accountability in how such sensitive contracts are allocated.
Demand for Independent Probe Intensifies
The opposition has escalated its demands, calling for both an independent judicial inquiry and a Special Investigation Team probe into the matter. Critics argue that this is not merely a technical oversight but a serious issue that directly impacts the futures of countless young students. They question why a company with a disputed history was entrusted with such a critical responsibility.
In response, the board has reiterated its commitment to rectifying the technical shortcomings and safeguarding student interests. However, the biggest challenge now lies in restoring the confidence of students and parents who have been shaken by these revelations. Rebuilding that trust will require more than just assurances; it will demand demonstrable improvements in the system’s reliability and transparency.
