On-Screen Marking system row: Firm roped in by CBSE under scanner for Telangana exam mess; may be fined

Official sources told The Indian Express Thursday that a CBSE committee will assess the extent of the scanning errors and determine the penalty amount based on the number of affected answer books.

A day after senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi questioned the choice of Coempt and claimed it had a chequered past, an official said the firm handles large-scale digital evaluation work in several states, including Telangana, Karnataka and West Bengal, and was financially competitive.

However, Coempt’s performance has been called into question before. In 2019, then known as Globarena Technologies Private Limited, the firm was linked to a data processing failure in Telangana after over 3 lakh students out of nearly 9.74 lakh who gave the state board Intermediate or Class 12 exams failed to clear it.

After 18 students were reported to have died by suicide in the week following the Telangana Board of Intermediate Education (TSBIE) results, the BRS government cancelled the contract with Globarena.

President of Telangana Parents’ Association N Narayana asked how academically bright students got 5 or 10 marks in some subjects, hundreds were “marked absent” despite appearing for the exams, and that one girl student’s marks went up from 0 to 99 in Telugu on re-evaluation.

Read More |‘Portal working, but payment not reflecting’: CBSE Class 12th answer-book copy glitch

Former TSBIE commissioner Syed Omer Jaleel told The Indian Express that Globarena, hired by the board to perform exam functions similar to the CBSE Class 12 test now, had used “untested and uncertified software”.

Soon after, Globarena Technologies Pvt Ltd had shifted its operations to its sister concern, Coempt Edutech Pvt Ltd.

A probe team set up by the Telangana government later said in its report that “pressure” to declare results may have led to the errors. Many evaluators who checked the marksheets were also assigned duty for the Telangana Assembly polls which were months away, in December 2018, and did the job hastily, the three-member committee said.

As per the panel, this rush led to mistakes such as 08 marks for a student instead of 88, or 00 instead of 99. The report held Globerena accountable for “minor technical mistakes’’, and did not blame anyone for the glitches.

Incidentally, of the 3.82 lakh who failed the TSBIE exam, only 1,183 passed on re-evaluation.

G Jagdish Reddy, who was the Telangana Education Minister at the time, told The Indian Express that the TSBIE had entrusted exam enrolment and result processing to Globarena for streamlining the process. “At that time it appeared they had the required software and technology. But mistakes were made, which cost the students dearly. So we decided not to utilise their services again.”

On why the firm had not been blacklisted — which has been cited by the authorities now as defence of Coempt — Reddy said: “There was a court case going on so we could not blacklist the firm at that time.”

CBSE rejects the allegations regarding the award of contract to Coempt Edutech. It is erroneous, misleading and not based on facts.

CBSE has followed the General Financial Rules protocols scrupulously in the awarding of the contract to the agency. CBSE floated the RFP for…

— CBSE HQ (@cbseindia29) May 27, 2026

Then Globarena and now Coempt CEO V S N Raju told The Indian Express that what happened was the result of a few minor glitches, which were rectified. “We did not commit any large-scale blunder as is being alleged.”

But, before that, in 2010, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University-Kakinada (JNTU-K) in Andhra Pradesh filed a cheating and criminal breach of trust case against Globarena over a Rs 20 crore contract to automate the university’s examination systems and to provide e-content. In its FIR, JNTU-K accused Globarena of substandard services, below average content, and not paying service tax.

The investigation by the Vigilance wing of the university also questioned how JNTU-K had awarded the contract to Globarena although the company had no evidence of previous experience of this.

JNTU-K consequently withheld all payments to Globarena, though the firm got a “no arrest’’order by the court. The case is still going on.

In November 2023, JNTU Hyderabad shortlisted Coempt Education Pvt Ltd along with Magnetic Infotech for digitising of answer scripts and for an onscreen digital evaluation system. Magnetic Infotech was linked to Coempt as a consortium partner.

Before that, JNTU Hyderabad had contracted Globarena and Magnetic for skill development and digital learning.

CBSE contract

The CBSE approved Coempt’s OSM system at a meeting of its Governing Body, the highest decision-making authority, in June last year. Members were told that digital evaluation would reduce errors and imparity in region-wise evaluation, and make the examination protocol stronger.

Going by the minutes of the meeting, “members (of the Governing Body) suggested that the on-screen marking may be implemented only after completion of pilot projects in some subjects across the various Regional Offices of the Board”. However, this was not done, and a dry run of the OSM evaluation was conducted in January in only five schools. Based on recommendations from the three-day process, the system was updated.

Sources told The Indian Express Thursday that it was wrong to say that enough preparation was not done, and that the board had been working on the transition for nearly a year.

The exam process

For the Class 12 exam, Coempt scanned, uploaded and evaluated digitally nearly 1 crore answer books of over 18 lakh students.

CBSE sources said answer books were checked multiple times during scanning and uploading, and evaluators had the option to reject illegible or blurred scans during marking.

The controversy emerged after students who sought access to the scanned copies of their answer books flagged blurred answer sheets, missing pages, and, in some cases, that another student’s answer book was showing up as theirs. After this, the CBSE’s payment system for reevaluation also collapsed, deducting additional payments in some cases and smaller-than-required amounts in others.

Officials told The Indian Express on May 23 that 2.94 lakh applications had been received for 8.56 lakh answer books this time – more than twice the number last year. At least partly, the demand was driven by a lower proportion of 90% and above overall scores this time.

In its defence, the board cited this “unprecedented traffic” as well as claimed “attempts of unauthorised interference”.

On the choice of Coempt, officials said the tendering process had been conducted by the CBSE and the company had emerged as the lowest bidder. A source said the CBSE paid Rs 25 per copy for scanning and software work for a 40-page answer booklet, compared to the second bidder’s offer of Rs 60.

The mismatches, according to an official, likely occurred during the masking stage of the evaluation process, when roll numbers are concealed to maintain anonymity before answer sheets are sent to evaluators. Sources emphasised that rather than the OSM technology, the problem lay in isolated human lapses during implementation.