The CBSE pushed through the system anyway. Instead of paper booklets, examiners used computers to evaluate digitally scanned copies of answer scripts submitted by the examinees, which the CBSE put on a secure online platform.

Students started complaining about their marks almost immediately after the CBSE declared the Class 12 results on May 13. On Tuesday, a public interest petition was filed in the Delhi High Court seeking an inquiry into the alleged irregularities, technical deficiencies, and grievance-handling failures associated with the OSM system.

In the evening, the government removed the CBSE chairman, Rahul Singh, and the Board secretary, Himanshu Gupta, from their posts and ordered an inquiry into the OSM fiasco.

The OSM pilot exercise was conducted in Delhi over three days in mid-January. Participants in the exercise included representatives of five among the capital’s most reputed schools – a group that includes private schools, schools run by the Delhi government, and Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalayas, which are administered by the central government.

Principals, evaluators, examiners, and subject experts appointed by the CBSE took part in the exercise. The participants were trained on the OSM system, and were then asked to evaluate mock answer scripts using the new platform.

The participants in the pilot exercise flagged a wide variety of problems with the marking schemes, calculations, and the technical working of the system, official sources familiar with the dry run told The Indian Express.

Specifically, the sources said the problems that were identified on the first day of the exercise could not be rectified even by the end of the third day, when the exercise concluded.

According to the sources, among the issues that the participants flagged in their feedback were:

* In one example documented by the participants, marks that an Additional Head Examiner (AHE) increased by 1.5 reflected in the system as minus 1.5, that is, a reduction instead of an increase.

* There was serious misalignment between the marking schemes provided to the examiners by CBSE, and what the software reflected. That is, marks that showed on the screen did not match with the marking scheme in some sets.

* In one paper set, while the question contained multiple parts, the total marks of only one part was reflected.

* In some instances, the system forced “partial” marking of 0.5 marks on the examiners, even when the marking scheme did not permit this.

* The OSM system was hanging frequently, especially when the examiners used the ‘Undo’ button.

* Marks prescribed in the marking scheme were missing from the evaluation interface.

* The progress of the marking was not saved automatically by the system.

* Evaluators were able to mark even blank pages or unattempted questions if they clicked on the question number on the left of the screen.

Many of these same problems were reported by students in several states after the CBSE declared the results of the examination last month.

Many of those who obtained copies of their answer scripts alleged that answers had been left unchecked or partially checked, or had been inconsistently evaluated. It was also alleged that the scans were blurry and difficult to read, and that sheets were mismatched – allegedly leading to examinees being marked on answers that they had not written.

Before the chairman and secretary of CBSE were moved out Tuesday, The Indian Express had sought their reactions on the negative feedback submitted by the participants of the dry run, but had received no response.

The Indian Express also reached out to Controller of Examinations Sanyam Bhardwaj with a detailed set of queries but received no response.

Minutes of a meeting of the CBSE’s Governing Body in June 2025 show that the “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”.

This was not done. Instead, the CBSE chose to do the three-day dry run in January with just five schools in Delhi.

In a document titled “Know About On Screen Marking” that it published after the allegations started, the Board said it had updated the system “as per suitability of the traditional evaluation system”, and followed it up with a dry run in five schools “to check the feasibility of the system”.

According to the Board, teachers from Kendriya and Navodaya Vidyalayas, as well as state government and private schools participated in the exercise, and submitted reports on the suitability of the platform and recommendations for improvement.

The “three days intensive activity provided the Board with a blueprint of what modifications were needed in the system,” the CBSE said.

The Board also claimed that several changes were incorporated in the system after the dry run was completed. It said that “there was no ‘Save’ option available, which was added at later stages”, and “the process for deletion of marks was a little lengthy, which was altered”.

It also said that “the issue of a static IP emerged which was resolved for later evaluation purpose” and that “the marks awarded position was hiding written text of students, which was changed”.

The CBSE also said that a “different colour code for HE (Head Examiner), AHE (Additional Head Examiner) and Evaluators as in traditional evaluation was brought about”, and that the “marking scheme linkage with answer book was done” were among the changes made.

In a second report to the Board, participants in the same dry run flagged at least 36 technical, operational and evaluation related concerns. Some of the observations flagged in this report included risks of “blind or superficial checking” and warned that the system “does not provide opportunities for evaluators to interact, deliberate or arrive at a consensus while allotting marks, which is essential for fair and standardized assessment”.

It also stated the absence of “a mechanism enabling additional head examiners (AHEs) to return answer scripts to evaluators when multiple errors are detected, allowing re-evaluation and corrections before final submission”.

***

The early warning

Glitches flagged during dry run

• Score increases by additional head examiners reportedly reflected as deductions.
• Marks showed on-screen didn’t always align with official marking.
• In some cases, marks for one sub-part of a question reflected.
• System reportedly allowed or forced 0.5-mark award not permitted under marking scheme.
• Evaluators reported that the platform would freeze.
• Evaluation progress reportedly not being saved automatically.
• Marks could reportedly be entered against blank pages, unattempted questions.

CBSE claims to have fixed

• ‘Save’ option added to evaluation interface.
• Mark deletion process simplified.
• Static IP issue fixed before actual evaluation.
• Marks’ display repositioned to avoid obscuring answers.
• AHE/HE review process revised to allow answer-book review irrespective of daily evaluation percentage.
• Server capacity enhanced to address internet speed.