JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.B. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents Oil India Limited (OIL) are represented by senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Sarma. The petitioner is a retired Air Force personnel and was sponsored by the Zila Sainik Welfare Office, Dibragarh for the post of Junior Engineer in OIL. The petitioner appeared in the written test on 16.7.2006 along with other applicants and after having qualified in this segment, was called for the viva voce scheduled on 13.9.2006. But after the results were notified on 7.5.2007, the petitioner learnt that he failed to qualify and accordingly the aggrieved petitioner has belatedly approached the Court to challenge the recruitment process, in pursuant to the vacancy notification dated 31.10.2005 of the OIL. 2. The petitioner contends that some of the available posts should have been earmarked for ex-serviceman quota and since this was not done, the recruitment process is faulty. Claiming to have performed well in the viva voce test, the petitioner contends that his non-selection was unjustified. 3. For the respondents, the senior counsel Mr. SN Sarma submits that in the vacancy notice itself, there was clear indication that 'NIL' posts are earmarked for ex-serviceman and accordingly he submits that although the petitioner is an ex-Air Force man, his absorption in the recruitment process was not against any earmarked vacancy of ex-serviceman but as a general vacancy. Projecting that petitioner participated in the selection without any protest and had belatedly challenged the process after he failed to qualify, Mr. Sarma argues that such opportunistic challenge should not be entertained by the Court. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the senior counsel argues that as an ex-Air Force man, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the recruitment process by granting him age relaxation and if his performance would have justified, he would have been surely recruited. Pointing out that large number of ex-serviceman are in fact employed on regular basis in OIL, the respondents submit that non-selection of the petitioner is on merit and not on account of any non-bona fide reason. 4. Here the recruitment results were announced on 7.5.2007 and yet the petitioner waited for nearly 10 months to question the legality of the selection process. 4. Here the recruitment results were announced on 7.5.2007 and yet the petitioner waited for nearly 10 months to question the legality of the selection process. He participated in the recruitment process knowing fully well that no posts are reserved for ex-serviceman and therefore, he took a chance to get recruited as a general category candidate. But after the recruitment results were declared, the non-selected person is trying to ventilate his grievance by raising larger issues. 5. As recruiter, the OIL authorities were entitled to stipulate the cut off mark for their recruitment tests and here the projection is that the petitioner failed to secure the required marks in the viva voce test and that is why he was not selected. Moreover although the recruitment process is challenged after several months, none of the selected persons are arrayed herein as respondents, but it is obvious that they were necessary parties, since any decision taken in this proceeding is going to impact their service. 6. In a large commercial organization like OIL, they obviously would be interested to recruitment the best talents and it is not the contention of the petitioner that the OIL authorities have any bias against recruitment of ex-serviceman. In fact a good number of ex-servicemen are regular employees with OIL and there can be no reason to ignore the petitioner, if his performance justifies his recruitment. 7. Here the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process without any reservation and he never challenge the employment notice of 31.10.2005, which did not provide for reservation to ex-serviceman. Only after the results were notified, he made an opportunistic challenge to the recruitment process. 8. In order to explain the belated approach to the Court, Advocate Mr. S.B. Prasad submits that the petitioner had filed representation immediately after the selection. But in my view, filing of representation can't be an acceptable excuse to entertain a delayed challenge. Having considered the above, I'm of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief and accordingly the case is dismissed without any order of cost.