'Financial years were changed, Coempt qualified by 1.7% margin': Student's fresh questions to CBSE
According to Sarthak, Coempt allegedly failed to meet the turnover requirement in the earlier tender but narrowly cleared the revised criteria in the subsequent bidding round
- Jun 1, 2026,
- Updated Jun 1, 2026 3:01 PM IST
Sarthak Sidhant, a Class 12 student who earlier questioned CBSE's tendering process for its On-Screen Marking (OSM) project, on Monday raised fresh concerns over changes in the board's financial eligibility criteria. He asked why turnover requirements and reference financial years were altered between two tender rounds held just three months apart.
Don't Miss: CBSE controversy: Meet the 3 musketeers who exposed systemic failures on social media
In a post on X, Sarthak questioned why CBSE altered the financial years used for evaluating bidders between two tenders issued just three months apart.
"Can you please explain why: 1) in the May tender, the financial years were FY21, FY22, FY23, and the limit set to 50 cr. Where Coempt fails, by 14.83% margin. Coempt does not ask to decrease the budget in PBC. Coempt did not ask to change/update the FY," he asked. "In the August tender, just 3 months later, the financial years change to FY22, FY23, FY24. Coempt clears this, by a 1.7% margin."
According to Sarthak, Coempt allegedly failed to meet the turnover requirement in the earlier tender but narrowly cleared the revised criteria in the subsequent bidding round.
"May Comes After the Start of April, that is the new Financial Year, Why were the financial years not updated in the earlier tender?" he asked. He also questioned why CBSE did not lower the turnover threshold to ₹30 crore, saying a bidder had suggested such a change during pre-bid discussions to encourage wider participation.
Must Watch: NEET Leak, CBSE Row, CUET Glitch: Why India's Exam System Faces Massive Scrutiny?
The latest post comes days after Sarthak claimed that changes in CBSE's tender conditions may have altered eligibility requirements in ways that benefited Coempt Eduteck, the company that handled scanning and digital evaluation under the OSM system.
In a detailed blog post, Sarthak argued that several provisions present in the earlier Request for Proposal (RfP) were either removed or modified in the final tender. He claimed that clauses allowing disqualification for a history of "abandoning work", failing to complete contractual obligations, or financial weaknesses were removed from the revised document.
"If they had kept this clause, Coempt's catastrophic operational history under the name Globarena in Telangana would have been a massive legal hurdle for their qualification," he wrote.
Sarthak also pointed to changes in provisions dealing with blacklisted companies. According to him, language referring to firms that had been "blacklisted earlier" was replaced with a requirement that bidders should not be "currently blacklisted."
"The difference went from 'Blacklisted earlier' to 'Currently Blacklisted'," he wrote, adding that the change raised questions because Globarena Technologies, which he says later rebranded as Coempt Eduteck, had been linked to the Telangana Intermediate Examination controversy in 2019.
The student further focused on the ₹50 crore turnover requirement. Citing company filings, he claimed Coempt's average turnover over the relevant three-year period worked out to ₹50.86 crore, only marginally above the eligibility threshold.
"The Razor thin Margin of less than 1.7% is suspicious," he wrote, noting that another bidder had earlier requested the turnover requirement be reduced to ₹30 crore to promote competition.
Sarthak's allegations stem from what he says was a review of 576 CBSE tenders available in the public domain. He claims to have tracked changes across multiple versions of the OSM tender and examined the financial and eligibility criteria applied during the bidding process.
The dispute is unfolding against the backdrop of the CBSE OSM controversy, in which several Class 12 students reported discrepancies after obtaining scanned copies of answer sheets uploaded to the portal and finding that some answer books allegedly did not belong to them.
Sarthak Sidhant, a Class 12 student who earlier questioned CBSE's tendering process for its On-Screen Marking (OSM) project, on Monday raised fresh concerns over changes in the board's financial eligibility criteria. He asked why turnover requirements and reference financial years were altered between two tender rounds held just three months apart.
Don't Miss: CBSE controversy: Meet the 3 musketeers who exposed systemic failures on social media
In a post on X, Sarthak questioned why CBSE altered the financial years used for evaluating bidders between two tenders issued just three months apart.
"Can you please explain why: 1) in the May tender, the financial years were FY21, FY22, FY23, and the limit set to 50 cr. Where Coempt fails, by 14.83% margin. Coempt does not ask to decrease the budget in PBC. Coempt did not ask to change/update the FY," he asked. "In the August tender, just 3 months later, the financial years change to FY22, FY23, FY24. Coempt clears this, by a 1.7% margin."
According to Sarthak, Coempt allegedly failed to meet the turnover requirement in the earlier tender but narrowly cleared the revised criteria in the subsequent bidding round.
"May Comes After the Start of April, that is the new Financial Year, Why were the financial years not updated in the earlier tender?" he asked. He also questioned why CBSE did not lower the turnover threshold to ₹30 crore, saying a bidder had suggested such a change during pre-bid discussions to encourage wider participation.
Must Watch: NEET Leak, CBSE Row, CUET Glitch: Why India's Exam System Faces Massive Scrutiny?
The latest post comes days after Sarthak claimed that changes in CBSE's tender conditions may have altered eligibility requirements in ways that benefited Coempt Eduteck, the company that handled scanning and digital evaluation under the OSM system.
In a detailed blog post, Sarthak argued that several provisions present in the earlier Request for Proposal (RfP) were either removed or modified in the final tender. He claimed that clauses allowing disqualification for a history of "abandoning work", failing to complete contractual obligations, or financial weaknesses were removed from the revised document.
"If they had kept this clause, Coempt's catastrophic operational history under the name Globarena in Telangana would have been a massive legal hurdle for their qualification," he wrote.
Sarthak also pointed to changes in provisions dealing with blacklisted companies. According to him, language referring to firms that had been "blacklisted earlier" was replaced with a requirement that bidders should not be "currently blacklisted."
"The difference went from 'Blacklisted earlier' to 'Currently Blacklisted'," he wrote, adding that the change raised questions because Globarena Technologies, which he says later rebranded as Coempt Eduteck, had been linked to the Telangana Intermediate Examination controversy in 2019.
The student further focused on the ₹50 crore turnover requirement. Citing company filings, he claimed Coempt's average turnover over the relevant three-year period worked out to ₹50.86 crore, only marginally above the eligibility threshold.
"The Razor thin Margin of less than 1.7% is suspicious," he wrote, noting that another bidder had earlier requested the turnover requirement be reduced to ₹30 crore to promote competition.
Sarthak's allegations stem from what he says was a review of 576 CBSE tenders available in the public domain. He claims to have tracked changes across multiple versions of the OSM tender and examined the financial and eligibility criteria applied during the bidding process.
The dispute is unfolding against the backdrop of the CBSE OSM controversy, in which several Class 12 students reported discrepancies after obtaining scanned copies of answer sheets uploaded to the portal and finding that some answer books allegedly did not belong to them.