PESHAWAR, July 29: A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition of two students seeking admission to medical colleges on seats reserved for backward areas.

The petitioners, Altaf Ahmad and Farooq Rehman, had challenged Para 11 of the medical colleges prospectus regarding reserved seats for backward areas of Dir, contending that it was violative to Article 4 of the Constitution as boys were not treated at par with girl candidates.

Under the government policy for seats reserved for backward areas it is mandatory that the candidate should have passed his intermediate examination from the area concerned. In case of non-availability of a college in the area, the candidates should have domicile of the area.

The candidates contended that two girl students were given admission by the joint admission committee on reserved seats for Dir despite the fact that they had studied in settled districts.

The bench comprising Justice Shehzad Akber Khan and Justice Qaim Jan Khan observed that admissions for the session 2003 had been completed and no seats were available. It observed that the petitioners could not be accommodated at this stage.

The petitioners' counsel, Lateef Afridi, contended that in the policy for Dir area in Para 11 for boy students it was made mandatory that they should have continued their studies in Dir while for girls the condition was that they should carry domicile of the area.

He said the policy was made on the assumption that there was no women's college in Dir but there were four colleges for women in the area. He contended that it was discriminatory that the condition of passing intermediate examination from Dir was waived for girls.

Advocate Waseemuddin Khattak, appearing for the medical colleges, contended that the petitioners had applied for admission on the basis of the policy given by the provincial health department. He said that once they had applied on the basis of the policy, they could not challenge it.

Mr Khattak pointed out that another bench of the high court had dismissed an identical petition and pointed out that there was a difference between educational institution and education facility. He said an institution might be present in a backward area but that might lack the required education facility.