Class 12 Student Challenges CBSE’s OSM Tender Process, Seeks Accountability Answers
A Class 12 student affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has raised pointed questions about the board’s tender process for its On-Screen Marking (OSM) system. The student, Sarthak Siddhant, has publicly shared concerns through a blog post, alleging that key accountability clauses were removed from the tender documents. He has urged the board to respond with transparency and clarity.
Student’s Comparative Review Uncovers Discrepancies
Siddhant, who is currently in Class 12, conducted a detailed comparison of multiple tender documents issued by CBSE for the OSM system. After reviewing the paperwork, he concluded that several provisions designed to ensure vendor accountability had been dropped from the latest version. He also pointed to patterns that, in his view, suggest preferential treatment toward a particular service provider.
In his blog, Siddhant noted that he identified at least 15 irregularities across the tender documents. Of these, he highlighted three or four as particularly significant. His analysis suggests that the changes may have been made to benefit a specific EdTech company, potentially at the expense of larger and more established players in the field.
Three Tenders, One Outcome
According to Siddhant’s findings, CBSE issued three separate tenders for the OSM system. The first was withdrawn from the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal. The second tender saw all bidders fail the technical evaluation stage. The third and final tender was ultimately awarded to an EdTech firm.
This sequence of events, the student argues, raises questions about the consistency and fairness of the selection process. He believes the board’s approach may have inadvertently—or otherwise—narrowed the field of eligible bidders.
Key Accountability Clauses Removed
One of the most striking issues highlighted by Siddhant concerns performance-related safeguards. In the earlier tender documents, there were three specific rules tied to poor performance by the service provider. These rules stipulated that a vendor could be disqualified if their performance fell below expected standards.
However, in the revised tender proposal, these clauses were conspicuously absent. Siddhant also flagged changes to rules governing blacklisting procedures, financial eligibility thresholds, and project evaluation criteria. He contends that these modifications appear to favor the EdTech firm over competitors like Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), a major player in the technology sector.
Concerns Over Transparency and Fair Play
The student’s blog post reflects a broader concern about how public institutions handle procurement processes. By removing accountability mechanisms, he argues, the board risks creating an environment where vendor performance is not adequately monitored or penalized. This, in turn, could impact the quality and reliability of the OSM system used in board examinations.
Siddhant has expressed hope that CBSE will take his questions seriously and provide a clear explanation for the changes. He emphasized that his intention is not to make accusations but to ensure that the process remains fair, transparent, and aligned with public interest.
Separate Incident: Cyber Attack on CBSE Re-evaluation Portal
In a related development, CBSE’s re-evaluation portal recently experienced a security breach. Unauthorized access was gained to the payment gateway, which was managed by HDFC. The breach affected approximately 50 students.
Sources indicated that the portal displayed abnormal fee amounts after the unauthorized access. In several cases, the payable sum fluctuated wildly, ranging from as little as one rupee to nearly ₹67,000–68,000. The issue came to light shortly after the portal went live for student use.
While the breach appears to have been limited in scope, it has raised additional concerns about the board’s digital infrastructure and its ability to safeguard sensitive student data. Officials have described the incident as either a prank or a malicious act, though no official statement has been issued regarding corrective measures.
Looking Ahead
As CBSE continues to digitize its examination and evaluation processes, the need for robust oversight and transparent vendor selection becomes increasingly critical. The student’s findings, along with the recent portal breach, underscore the importance of accountability at every level—from procurement to implementation.
For now, the ball is in CBSE’s court. Whether the board chooses to respond publicly to Siddhant’s concerns will likely shape public perception of its commitment to fairness and transparency in administrative matters.
