Eduquity Bags SSC Exam Contract for ₹273 Crore Despite Past Ban, Beats TCS in Controversial Tender
Eduquity, a private exam-conducting agency previously blacklisted in 2020 by the Central Directorate of Training, has made a surprising comeback by securing the prestigious SSC Computer-Based Test (CBT) contract for ₹273 crore. The decision has raised several eyebrows across the education and competitive exam ecosystem, as Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), a trusted name with years of experience in conducting government exams, was also in the race with a significantly higher bid of around ₹450 crore.
In 2020, Eduquity was barred from conducting government recruitment exams after reports surfaced citing irregularities, mismanagement, and failure to meet basic quality standards. Since then, it has somehow managed to regain access to major state-level contracts including the MP Patwari exam and Maharashtra MBA CET. These, too, were marred by serious concerns such as paper leaks, delays, and logistical failures. Despite this troubling track record, Eduquity has now been entrusted with one of India’s largest exam cycles — the SSC CBT.
The selection process used for awarding the SSC contract was based on the Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) model, which aims to balance technical competence with financial feasibility. Under QCBS, bidders are scored based on a weighted formula that combines quality (technical criteria) and cost. Eduquity’s lower quote of ₹273 crore reportedly gave it an edge over TCS. However, many experts now question whether quality was given the weight it truly deserved in a domain as sensitive as public examination.
The real-world impact of this decision became apparent quickly. Eduquity’s first SSC exam rollout faced chaos in multiple cities. Exam centers in locations like Hubli and Pawan Ganga were abruptly cancelled on exam day. Thousands of students, many of whom had traveled 300 to 500 kilometers, found themselves without a center, without recourse, and without any formal communication from the agency or the SSC. Reports of technical failures, lack of basic infrastructure, and miscommunication between test administrators added to the frustration.
Also Read: "Russian Plane Crash in Amur Region: All 49 Dead in Antonov An-24 Tragedy"
Students took to social media to voice their outrage, demanding accountability from both Eduquity and the Staff Selection Commission. Critics argue that this was an avoidable crisis and point to the inherent risks in choosing a vendor with a questionable history. The most pressing concern now revolves around why a vendor with a history of failure was allowed back into the public examination system, and why an experienced, proven vendor like TCS was overlooked despite quoting higher.
Many education policy analysts believe the answer lies in the overemphasis on cost-saving measures within government procurement. While the QCBS model is intended to prioritize both cost and quality, in practice, it often ends up favoring the lowest bidder — especially when technical evaluation lacks rigor. This case demonstrates how such an approach can lead to disaster when critical services like national recruitment exams are involved.
Calls are now growing for a comprehensive audit of the tendering process. Students, educators, and public figures are demanding transparency from SSC and a review of the vetting process that allowed Eduquity to become eligible again. Some are calling for a re-evaluation of all ongoing and upcoming exams being handled by the agency.
This situation has highlighted a crucial need for reform. Government bodies must reinforce strict eligibility norms for vendors, implement real-time monitoring, and hold agencies accountable for lapses. The integrity of India’s public examination system depends on it.
The question remains — was the ₹177 crore cost difference really worth risking the future of thousands of candidates?