only on the ground that the candidate chose the second option of challenging the violation on the culmination of the selection process. 63. In Krishna Rai (supra), the Supreme Court disapproved the Division Bench applying the principle of estoppel only on the ground that the candidate appeared in the interview and challenged the same only after being unsuccessful in the same. The Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel would not be above the law and cannot overwrite the law, and if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in law. 64. The judgment in Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra) also cannot come to the aid of the respondents inasmuch as the Recruitment Rules therein required the candidate to have basic knowledge of computer operation. In the viva voce examination, an expert in the field of computers had been associated for determining and assessing the knowledge of computer operation of the candidate. The challenge was that no syllabus was prescribed by the respondents therein for judging and ascertaining the basic knowledge of the candidate in computer operation, and in the absence of any benchmark provided for judging the suitability of persons in computer operation, failing the appellant therein only on the ground that he did not have sufficient knowledge in basic computer operation, was uncalled for and unjustified. The Supreme Court negated such challenge, holding that since possession of knowledge of computer operation was one of the eligibility criteria for the post, and the candidates at the time when the written examination result was published were informed that the basic
