T. Vaiphei, J.;- This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.4.2007 issued by the respon­dent No. 4 (The Commanding Officer, 17 Bn, BSF) retiring the petitioner from service on the ground of physical unfitness under Rule 25 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 ("BSF Rules"). 2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, may be noticed at the outset. He was enrolled as Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 14.1.2003 after being found fit in all respects whereafter he underwent physical training at the Subsidiary Training Centre at Salugora (West Bengal), which he successfully completed in December, 2003. While he was posted under the respondent No. 4, he absented himself from duty in the month of December, 2005, for which he was punished with 14 days' imprisonment in quarter guard. Due to tremendous pressure of service and the stress and strain of duties associated here­with, he could not attend to his domestic prob­lems and started to have the feeling of inse­curity and failed to get any support including proper medical attention from his superior officers. The Unit Medical Officer accord­ingly referred him to the Civil Hospital, Tura where a Specialist Psychiatrist examined him for the first time on 25.9.2006. He was again examined by the Specialist Psychiatrist on 13.11.2006, who diagnosed him to be a pa­tient of Dysthymic Disorder. On 13.2.2007, he was sent for check up when the Graded Specialist advised him for three months' rest at home with his family, for which the Spe­cialist issued a Certificate to that effect. On 22.2.2007, while he was undergoing treat­ment with prescribed medication, he was brought before the Invaliding Medical Board comprising of the Unit Medical Officer and a Medical Officer of another Unit on 22.2.2007, and was diagnosed to be suffer­ing from "F-20 Paranoid Schizophrenia" with 50% disability and placed him in S5H1A1P1E1 medical classification, which rendered him unfit for any duty under the BSF. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the re­spondent No. 4 issued the notice dated 2.4.2007 (Annexure-P/5) informing him of his proposal to retire him from service on the ground of physical unfitness under Rule 25 of the BSF Rules and gave him the liberty to represent against the findings of the Medical Board and against his tentative decision to retire him from service to the next Officer su­perior in command i.e. Deputy Inspector General, BSF, Tura within 15 days of the re­ceipt of the notice. He at once met the re­spondent No. 4 and apprised him that he was fit. No action was, however, taken on his rep­resentation. On the contrary, the respondent No. 4 issued the impugned order retiring him from service on the ground indicated earlier. The day after he was boarded out, he reported to the Graded Specialist Psychiatry, Civil Hospital, Tura, who used to treat him on ref­erence by the BSF Medical authorities, and was duly examined by him, who then issued the Certificate dated 27.4.2007 declaring that he had fully recovered and was fit to resume normal duty. Aggrieved by the inj ustice done to him, he on 2.5.2007 submitted a repre­sentation, but the same was rejected by the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 31.7.2007. This compelled him to submit a statutory petition dated 3.9.2007 under Rule 28-A of the BSF Rules to the respondent No. 2 for his reinstatement, which has never been disposed of till now. The notice issued by him under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Proce­dure was, however, rejected by the respon­dent No. 3 mechanically. This is how this writ petition has been filed by him for appropriate relief. 3. The writ petition is contested by the respondent authorities, who have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The stance taken by them is that the petitioner was found medically unfit to be retained in the Force after he was physically as well as mentally examined by a duly constituted Medical Board in ac­cordance with the prescribed procedure, which is not liable to be questioned by him. The petitioner was admittedly punished for his unauthorized absence from duty from 5.9.2005 to 24.9.2005 for 20 days and then from 27.10.2005 to 25.11.2005. The petitioner was admittedly punished for his unauthorized absence from duty from 5.9.2005 to 24.9.2005 for 20 days and then from 27.10.2005 to 25.11.2005. It is pointed out by the answering respondents that the petitioner had earned 4 red entries to his credit for committing various offences under the BSF Act and Rules within a short career spanning 4 years, 3 months and 12 days. As a matter of fact, soon after his posting with the unit, he was observed to be mentally dis­turbed and was accordingly not deployed in the border and was most of the time retained at the Battalion Headquarters. On 17.10.2005, he became violent without any provocation and started abusing senior officers and threatened to kill them. He was immediately sent to the Civil Hospital, Shillong where he was diagnosed of an acute psycho­sis and was referred to Mental Hospital, Mawlai, Shillong; he remained there under treatment from 18.10.2005 to 21.10.2005, and was diagnosed as a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia and was advised by the Medi­cal Officer that he should be kept under observation without any duty. As a result, he was not issued any firearm in the interest of his safety and for the security of others. It is con-tended by the answering respondents that a personnel serving in the Security Force is subjected to strenuous duties and a Force per­sonnel is expected to prove equal to the task and the very allegations made by the peti­tioner, on the face of it, betrayed non-fulfill­ment of the required standards. On the basis of the diagnosis made by his attending physi­cian, he was placed in the low medical cat­egory for S3 (T-24) HI A1 PI El w.e.f. 13.1.2006 and had remained under treatment in the Unit Hospital as well as Civil Hospital, Shillong. In the month of October, 2006, he was further produced before the Medical Board, which again placed him under Low Medical Category and awarded S3 (T-24) H1A1P1E1 medical category with effect from 4.10.2006 due to F-20 Paranoid Schizophre­nia. In due course, he was again produced before a duly constituted Medical Board in the month of February, 2007 and was awarded S5H1A1P1E1 medical category with effect from 22.2.2007 by the Board, who duly took into account the opinion of a Spe­cialist. In due course, he was again produced before a duly constituted Medical Board in the month of February, 2007 and was awarded S5H1A1P1E1 medical category with effect from 22.2.2007 by the Board, who duly took into account the opinion of a Spe­cialist. The Medical Board accordingly found the petitioner to be completely and perma­nently incapacitated for further service of any kind under the BSF as he was suffering from F-20 Paranoid Schizophrenia. Thus, on the recommendation of the Medical Board and after following the prescribed instructions on the subject, he was retired from service on the ground of physical unfitness. It is contended by the respondent authorities that when the petitioner was found to be permanently disabled due to F-20 Paranoid Schizophre­nia, further retention of his service in the Force, where fire arms are extensively used in the discharge of normal duties and are ac­cessible, taking into account the safety of the petitioner and security of others, it was con­sidered not desirable to retain his service. His retirement was ordered only after he was af­forded an opportunity to submit his represen­tation against the findings of the Medical Board. It is stated by the answering respon­dents that the representations in the statutory petition submitted by the petitioner were duly examined together with the attending facts and circumstances, for which no interference is called for. These are the sum and substance of the case of the answering respondents. 4. A copy of the Medical Board Proceed­ings is found at Annexure-R/2 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authori­ties. From the Board proceedings, it is seen that the petitioner was examined by Dr. W.M. Sangma, Psychiatrist of Civil Hospital, Tura, whose opinion is as follows: "Appetite/sleep - Poor Auditory hallucination - Present Suicidal indent (intent?) Dysphonic effect Cap Fludac 20 mg 1 bd x 3 months (8 a.m. and 11 a.m.) Cap Zoldem 5 mg single tab SOS if there is sleep difficulty till 11 P.M. Cap Becasule Z 1 cap once daily after food for three months Rest for three months at home with family. Check up after three months." Purportedly on the basis of the aforesaid opinion, Dr. Check up after three months." Purportedly on the basis of the aforesaid opinion, Dr. (Mrs.) Neeta Palimal, Chief Medical Officer, 17 Bn., BSF, observed that the petitioner was unfit to remain in Medical category SHAPE-1 and accordingly recom­mended that he be placed in Low Medical Category S5II, A.P.E. The Medical Board Proceeding dated 22.2.07 considered the petitioner to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Border Security Force to which he be­longed in consequence of F-20 Paranoid Schizophrenia Kleptomania and Suicidal ten­dency and assessed his disability at 50% with the observation that his incapacitation did not appear to have been caused by irregular or intemperate habits. None of the Medical Of­ficers constituting the Medical Board are admittedly Specialists in Psychiatry. It is on the recommendation of this Medical Board that the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of medical unfitness by the im­pugned order dated 16.11.2007. However, before issuing the impugned order, the respon­dent No. 4 issued the letter/notice dated 2.4.2007 under Rule 25 of the BSF Rules, 1969 upon the petitioner informing him of his right to represent against the findings of the Medical Board and against his tentative de­cision to retire him from service to the supe­rior authority i.e. DIG, BSF, Tura. The rel­evant portions of the letter read thus: "Whereas you had been medically examined by a BSF Medical Board on 22.2.07 to assess your medical fitness. 2. Whereas the said Medical Board consid­ered you to be completely and permanently in­capacitated for further service of any kind in BSF to which he (sic) belongs in consequence of "F: 20 Paranoid Schizophrenia". The medical board further assessed the percentage of dis­ability as 50% (fifty per cent) and placed you in Low Medical Category S5 (P) HI A1 PI El. The DIG, Tura has also approved the findings of the Medical Board on 25th March, 2007. 3. Whereas, tentatively, it is being proposed by the undersigned to retire you from service on the ground of physical unfitness under Rule-25 of BSF Rules 1969. 4. The DIG, Tura has also approved the findings of the Medical Board on 25th March, 2007. 3. Whereas, tentatively, it is being proposed by the undersigned to retire you from service on the ground of physical unfitness under Rule-25 of BSF Rules 1969. 4. It is informed that you are at liberty to represent against the findings of the Medical Board and the tentatively proposed decision of the undersigned to retire you from service to the Officer next superior in command (i.e. DIG, BSF Tura/authority of BSF, within 15 days of receipt of this notice, failing which it shall be presumed that you do not have nothing to urge against the above proposed action and action to retire you from service on the ground of physical unfitness under Rule 25 of BSF Rules shall be initiated against you ex parte." 5. It is quite apparent from the pleadings of the petitioner vide para 8 of the writ peti­tion that he did not make any representation against the above findings of the Medical Board as well as the tentative decision of the respondent No. 4 to retire him from service on the basis of those findings. What he actu­ally pleaded therein is that he "at once took interview of the Commanding Officer and apprised him that he is fit". In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, it is clearly stated by the respondent No. 4 that no representation was received from the petitioner against the no­tice issued to him under Rule 25(3) of the BSF Rules, 1969. What is the effect of the failure on the part of the petitioner to make repre­sentation against the said notice, in my judg­ment, appears to be the moot point in this writ petition. At this stage, I may refer to Rule 25 of the BSF Rules, 1969, which reads thus: "25. Retirement of subordinate officer and enrolled person on ground of physical unfitness- (1) Where a Commandant is satisfied that a Subedar, a Sub-Inspector or an enrolled person is unable to perform his duties by reason of any physical disability, he may direct that the said Subedar, Sub-Inspector or the enrolled person, as the case may be, brought before a Medical Board. (2) The Medical Board shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the Director-General. (2) The Medical Board shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the Director-General. (3) Where the said Subedar, Sub-Inspector or enrolled person is found by the Medical Board to be unfit for further service in the force, the Inspector-General, the Deputy Inspector-General or, as the case may be, the Comman­dant may, if he disagree with the finding of the Medical Board, order the retirement of the Subedar, the Sub-Inspector or, as the case may be, the enrolled person. Provided that before the said Subedar or Sub-Inspector or, as the case may be, the en­rolled person is so retired, the finding of the Medical Board and the decision to retire him shall be communicated to him. (4) The Subedar, the Sub-Inspector or, as the case may be, the enrolled person may within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such communication make a representation to the officer next superior in command to the one who ordered the retirement. (5) The said superior officer shall have the case referred to a Review Medical Board which shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the Director-General. (6) The superior officer may, having regard to the finding of the Review Board, pass such order as he may deem fit. (7) Where a representation has been made to a superior officer under sub-rule (4), an order passed under sub-rule (3) (sic) shall not take effect till it is confirmed by such superior of­ficer." 6. The proviso to Rule 25(3) casts an ob­ligation upon the respondent No. 4 the duty to communicate to the petitioner the finding of the Medical Board and the decision to re­tire him from service. Correspondingly, the petitioner is given the statutory rights to represent against the finding of the Medical Board and against the tentative decision to retire him from service within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the communi­cation. Had he made the representation in time, the concerned superior authority would be obliged to have his case referred to a Re­view Medical Board to be constituted in the manner determined by the Director-General. The concerned superior authority shall there­after, having regard to the finding of the Re­view Medical Board pass such orders as he may deem fit. Had he made the representation in time, the concerned superior authority would be obliged to have his case referred to a Re­view Medical Board to be constituted in the manner determined by the Director-General. The concerned superior authority shall there­after, having regard to the finding of the Re­view Medical Board pass such orders as he may deem fit. In the case at hand, as already noticed, the notice/communication under sub-rule 4 of Rule 25 was issued by the respon­dent No. 4 upon the petitioner on 2.4.2007 (Annexure-P/5) informing him of his right to make representation against the said notice/ communication within fifteen days of the re­ceipt thereof. The receipt of this notice/com­munication is admitted by the petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition. Instead of making a rep­resentation against the notice/communication, he "at once took interview of the Command­ing Officer and apprised him that he is fit". This cannot be construed to be making a rep­resentation against the finding of the Medical Board and the tentative decision to retire him. He should have challenged the finding of the Medical Board and questioned the soundness of the decision to retire him. If that was done, the respondent authorities would have been obliged to constitute a Review Medical Board to re-examine his case. What he actually did was to get himself examined by Dr. M.W. Sangma, Specialist Psychiatrist on 27.4.2007 just one day after the impugned order was issued. It is thus apparent that he had been keeping silent on the matter from 2.4.2007 or so till the impugned order was issued. In my opinion, as the petitioner failed to make representation against the notice/communica­tion about the finding of the Medical Board and of the decision to retire him in time, it should be regarded as waiver on his part ren­dering him incapable to raise his objection against the finding of the Medical Board and of the decision to retire him at this stage. The concept of waiver was explained by the Apex Court as early as in 1957 in the case of Manak lal Vs. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 in the following manner: "8......It is true that waiver cannot always and in every case be inferred merely from failure of the party to take objection. The concept of waiver was explained by the Apex Court as early as in 1957 in the case of Manak lal Vs. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 in the following manner: "8......It is true that waiver cannot always and in every case be inferred merely from failure of the party to take objection. Waiver can be inferred only if and after it is shown that the party knew about the relevant facts and was aware of his right to take objection in question. As Sir John Romilly, MR. has observed in Vyvyan Vs. Vyvyan: (Beav p. 75: ER p. 817) Waiver or acquiescence, like election, pre­supposes that the person to be bound is fully cognizant of his rights, and that being so, he neglects to enforce them, or chooses one ben­efit instead of another, either, but not both, of which might claim." 7. The petitioner was fully aware of his right to make representation against the find­ing of the Medical Board as well as the deci­sion of the respondent No. 4 to retire him on the basis of the finding of the Medical Board. The benefit of making representation con­ferred by Rule 25(4) and (5) of the BSF Rules, 1969 is engrafted for the benefit of an indi­vidual in which no public interests are involved. Under the circumstances, the petitioner, through his conduct, has waived his right to equitable remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such conduct precludes and operates as estoppel against him with respect to asserting his right to question the validity of the finding of the Medical Board and of the decision of the respondent No. 4 to retire him accordingly, which has now attained finality due to his inaction. Though a number of con­tentions has been raised at the bar, in the view that I have taken that the petitioner has waived his right to question the validity of the im­pugned order, it is no longer necessary to deal with them. 8. For what has been stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respec­tive costs.