4 min readNagpurJun 8, 2026 07:28 PM IST
First published on: Jun 8, 2026 at 06:50 PM IST
Months before a university-appointed panel began examining complaints over examination glitches and alleged irregularities in the tender process, the Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University (RTMNU) had formally defended the eligibility of Coempt Edu Teck Pvt. Ltd. for a key examination management contract, according to an official letter reviewed by The Indian Express.
In a communication dated March 30, 2026, addressed to National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) representative Ajit Singh, director of the Board of Examination and Evaluation, Manish Zodpe, had issued a point-by-point rebuttal to the allegations raised by the NSUI and justified the Tender Opening Committee’s decision to declare the company “technically qualified”.
The letter was issued in response to a complaint filed by the NSUI on February 7, which questioned Coempt’s credentials and eligibility for the examination department e-tender.
One of the principal allegations concerned the company’s reported involvement in the 2019 Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education (TSBIE) examination controversy. NSUI had alleged that the firm, then operating as Globarena Technologies Pvt. Ltd., had been blacklisted and subsequently changed its name.
RTMNU, however, stated in the letter that the company had on October 30, 2019, submitted a valid certificate of incorporation from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, documenting its name change from Globarena Technologies Private Limited to Coempt Edu Teck Private Limited. On the blacklisting allegation, the university noted that the firm fulfilled tender requirements by furnishing a self-declaration, “Annexure-2 Not Blacklisted or Debarred”, and was therefore eligible for technical qualification.
The university had also rejected claims that Coempt lacked experience in pre- and post- examination result processing. While NSUI argued that the firm’s documents reflected work only in digital valuation and online examinations, RTMNU maintained that the contracts submitted specifically referred to a “pre- post result processing exams solution” and that pre- and post-examination work inherently included result processing.
Another dispute centred on a tender clause requiring bidders to demonstrate experience handling pre- and post-examination result processing for at least two lakh students over two consecutive years. NSUI had pointed to institutions cited by the company where student numbers were below the prescribed threshold.
In its response, RTMNU acknowledged that the student strength at some of those institutions was lower but maintained that “the company successfully demonstrated valid experience handling over two lakh students at other locations continuously for two years”, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria.
The university further clarified that agreements submitted as proof of experience need not disclose pricing details during technical evaluation, as financial rates are routinely concealed at that stage of the bidding process.
Based on the documents submitted by the bidder, the Tender Opening Committee had concluded that Coempt met the prescribed technical requirements and, therefore, declared the company “technically qualified”.
The March defence has acquired fresh significance amid continuing scrutiny of Coempt’s work at RTMNU. The company has faced criticism over examination-related errors, delays in results and discrepancies in marksheets, while a university-appointed committee continues to examine allegations related to both the firm’s performance and the tender process.
The university had rejected claims that Coempt lacked experience in pre- and post- examination result processing. (Image generated using AI) 
Share
