Nagpur: Questions over alleged tender-rigging and exam management failures have engulfed Nagpur University as a probe panel examines whether eligibility norms were softened to ease approval for Coempt Eduteck Pvt Ltd, a Hyderabad-based firm at centre of CBSE’s on-screen marking controversy.
Inquiry into winter 2025 result blunders and summer 2026 exam glitches is focusing on alleged “tailor-made” tweaks before award of a Rs 5-crore, three-year contract to Coempt.
Panel members are examining whether conditions were altered to favour a bidder despite allegations that the company, formerly known as Globarena Technologies, had faced blacklisting by some institutions in southern India.
Among changes under scrutiny, minimum experience in handling exams and results at a govt university or board was cut from three lakh students to two lakh, while requirement for digital valuation centres was halved from 200 screens to 100. At same time, minimum average annual turnover was raised fivefold from Rs 5 crore to Rs 25 crore.
A senior panel member questioned university’s justification that expanded responsibilities required tougher financial criteria.
“University claimed server infrastructure and data-centre responsibilities were shifted to vendor. But it did not have a data centre or server house of its own. Otherwise, why would results of over three lakh students get botched up?” the member said.
Tender rules had already been tested in court. Former exam contractor Promarc Software Pvt Ltd challenged the revised eligibility criteria before Nagpur bench of Bombay HC, saying new conditions were crafted to keep it out of bidding process. The HC dismissed plea in Oct 2025, ruling there was no evidence revised criteria were designed to favour or bar any specific bidder.
Probe, however, is examining broader allegations that relaxation of technical norms coupled with a stiffer turnover bar narrowed competition and may have paved way for current exam crisis.
Since taking charge, Coempt has been accused of a cascade of errors – wrong calculations, subject mismatches, flawed hall tickets, delayed results and pending marksheet corrections. Over 300 students filed complaints and nearly 60% of major-course results missed mandated 45-day deadlines. “Firm is struggling to handle workload of over 3.17 lakh students,” a university official said.
