Judgment 1. The instant petition has been registered as PIL on the letter of one Shri Brij Vallabh Bhootra. The petitioner has challenged the procedure prescribed by the Board of Secondary Examinations for conducting the examinations among deaf and dumb students. It is averred that the Board of Secondary Education conduct examinations for the regular deaf and dumb students admitted in the schools established by the State Government giving facility of taking examination by question papers based on Question Banks Syllabus. But for other deaf and dumb students i.e., private candidates the question papers are based on general category. Under the Question Banks System scheme they are provided with the set of questions and answers and the examination question paper is made only out of the Question Banks provided to such students. This has resulted into success of almost 100% candidates. Thus, according to the petitioner, a discrimination has been made between the regular and the private students. Thus, a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to conduct Secondary Examination for all the deaf and dumb studnts with he same system based on Question Banks Scheme. 2. A counter has been filed supported by the affidavit of Shri Dev Karan Baheti, Section Officer, Academic Section, Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan. A preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that in the instant petition the petitioner has raised his grievance pertaining to his own son. Thus, if he has any grievance, he will seek an appropriate remedy, but not by way of public interest litigation. The another objection is that the examination are conducted as per the statutory guidelines framed by the Board of Secondary Education based on technical advice. This Court will not interfere with the policy decision of the Board of Secondary Education. 3. As regards the merit, it is averred that on account of changed mental abilities of deaf and dumb students vis a vis normal students it is provided that after passing the VIII Standard they are to undergo three years course to finish IX and X Standards. The students studying in deaf and dumb schools in Classes IX and X are required to undertake studies under categories XI to XIII which in turn prescribes 35%, 30% and 30% respectively of the total course of IX and X Standard, which is otherwise prescribed for ordinary students. The students studying in deaf and dumb schools in Classes IX and X are required to undertake studies under categories XI to XIII which in turn prescribes 35%, 30% and 30% respectively of the total course of IX and X Standard, which is otherwise prescribed for ordinary students. The policy decision has been based on the experience that the deaf and dumb students unless studying in a school recognised as a deaf and dumb school is not likely to get benefit of this differentiation and that the parents of such a students are likely to misuse the benefit unless the same are provided under supervision and control of the school authorities. The idea is to encourage the school teaching to the deaf and dumb students. It is further averred that at present there are following schools for the deaf and dumb students:- .(1) Rajkiya Seth Anandi Lal Poddar Mook Badhir Sansthan, Jaipur. .(2) Gandhi Badhir Vidhyalaya, Jodhpur. .(3) Mook Badhir Vidhyalaya, Bhilwara. .(4) Badhir Vidhyalaya, Udaipur. It is stated that the petitioners son can conveniently take admission in Gandhi Badhir Vidhyalaya, Jodhpur. 4. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the view that it is not for this Court to interfere with the policy decision of the respondent authorities based on technical advice. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Apex Court in Maharasthra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Ors. vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 . It is always open for the State authorities to review their policy in case there are appropriate suggestion as come in the instant petition, the authorities may consider appropriately. Suffice, is to say no interference is warranted by this Court in a petition under the label of PIL. 5. The petition stands dismissed.