SSC Defends Exam Agency Choice Amid Allegations Over Eduquity

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has defended its decision to hire Eduquity Career Technologies as one of its examination agencies, rejecting allegations that it sidelined a more technically advanced competitor, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), to save costs.

The controversy stems from claims that the government selected Eduquity — a firm previously flagged as ineligible by some departments — despite its alleged technical shortcomings.

Credits: @TheLallantop

Allegations Against Eduquity

Critics have questioned Eduquity’s suitability, citing several past controversies:

In 2020, the Directorate of Training under the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship declared Eduquity ineligible to conduct exams.
In 2022, the agency faced complaints during the Teacher Eligibility Test in Madhya Pradesh for outsourcing work.
Eduquity was also linked to the Patwari recruitment exam controversy in Madhya Pradesh, prompting then-Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan to halt the recruitment process.

Despite these incidents, SSC included Eduquity in its panel of agencies, prompting questions about its selection criteria.

Chairman’s Defense: Transparency Over Discretion

Responding to the allegations, the SSC Chairman emphasized that the agency selection process is governed by strict government procurement rules.

“In government tendering, discretion is kept to a minimum. The process is fully documented to prevent misuse,” he said.

According to him, the selection involves two stages:

Technical evaluation to assess capabilities.
Financial evaluation to compare costs.

The aim, he stressed, is to strike a balance between technical merit and cost-efficiency. “An agency with poor technical ability or an excessively high bid will not be chosen,” he added, noting that this approach is standard across central and state ministries.

How the Tender Process Unfolded

The Chairman clarified that SSC did not award the work to a single agency, but selected four different agencies through the tender process. All details, he noted, are publicly available on the Central Public Procurement (CPP) Portal (eprocure.gov.in).

The process began with multiple bidders. In Round 1, an Ahmedabad-based firm was disqualified for failing to submit a blacklisting certificate.

This left TCS, Eduquity, and Aptech in contention. Aptech was subsequently removed after failing to meet technical requirements. Another firm, possibly NSIT, was also in the mix during later stages.

Role of the Technical Evaluation Committee

To avoid bias, SSC appointed an expert committee that included external IT specialists. Their evaluation used a scoring system, where companies needed to score above a threshold to qualify.

According to the Chairman, TCS, Eduquity, and another company all scored above five on the scale and were therefore deemed eligible for final consideration.

Concerns Over Eduquity’s Technology

The committee’s report noted that Eduquity uses encrypted systems to protect examination data — a positive for maintaining confidentiality.

However, it also pointed out that Eduquity’s platform operates on Windows, which is widely regarded in cybersecurity circles as less secure than some alternatives.

When asked directly about this potential vulnerability, the Chairman did not provide a detailed response, instead reiterating that the firm met the required technical standards set in the tender.

The Cost Factor Question

A central question raised during the interview was whether Eduquity was chosen over TCS primarily due to cost. Critics alleged that TCS demanded a higher fee for conducting the exams, making Eduquity the cheaper option.

While the Chairman did not disclose exact financial figures, he rejected the notion that cost alone dictated the outcome, stressing that both technical and financial parameters were weighed equally.

Calls for Greater Clarity

The debate over Eduquity’s selection has fueled broader concerns about the quality and security of government-conducted recruitment exams. Opposition voices have argued that past controversies involving a bidder should factor more heavily in selection decisions.

At the same time, SSC’s leadership maintains that procedural transparency — with evaluations documented and accessible via the CPP Portal — is the best safeguard against bias or impropriety.

Conclusion
While the SSC insists that Eduquity’s selection was based on an open and balanced evaluation process, lingering questions over the agency’s past performance, technical choices, and cost competitiveness remain unresolved.

As recruitment exams continue to face public scrutiny in India, the challenge for SSC and other government bodies will be to ensure that technical competence, security, and credibility are not just met on paper, but in actual execution.

SSC Defends Exam Agency Choice Amid Allegations Over Eduquity