Judgment :- 1. This is a petition by the petitioner in O.P. No. 1351 of 1963 "to take proceedings for contempt of Court against the respondents for the disobedience of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment dated 23rd August 1963 in O.P. No. 1351 of 1963," and the ground therefor is mentioned in the concluding paragraph of the accompanying affidavit thus: "The appropriate proceedings to be taken by this Court for the enforcement of my fundamental right in this case at this stage is to summon the respondents before Court, compel them to admit me for this year's Pre-medical course on the basis of my higher marks, and to punish them for the grave contempt of Court committed by them in this matter especially by passing Ext. P-1 Government Order dated 7-9-1963." The respondents to this petition are The Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum; The Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala; and the Minister for Health, Government of Kerala. 2. Contempt proceedings are essentially punitive in nature and not remedial, even though the effect of the proceedings in cases of wilful disobedience to a judgment or order may be to compel compliance with it. 3. In S.S. Roy v. State of Orissa (AIR. 1960 SC. 190) the Supreme Court has observed: "....it is not sufficient in such cases for the purpose of visiting a judicial Officer with the penal consequences of proceedings in contempt, simply because he committed an error of judgment, or the order passed by him is in excess of authority vested in him. The error must be a wilful error proceeding from improper or corrupt motives in order that he may be punished for contempt of Court." What their Lordships have said in respect of a magistrate seems well applicable to the respondents in this case. There is no allegation here that the respondents have refused admission to the petitioner on account of any "improper or corrupt motive." 4. On the other hand, Ex. P-1 shows that the respondents have carried out the direction of this Court, which was "to consider the applications of each of those petitioners, for admission to the courses concerned, without reference to the reservation(s) ... and also the selection ...on district-war merit basis." Ex. On the other hand, Ex. P-1 shows that the respondents have carried out the direction of this Court, which was "to consider the applications of each of those petitioners, for admission to the courses concerned, without reference to the reservation(s) ... and also the selection ...on district-war merit basis." Ex. P-1 states "If according to the judgment, a list is prepared on State-wide merit basis candidates who have secured 285.5 marks and above would have got admission to the pre-medical course;" and orders admission of the writ petitioners who have secured 285.5 marks and above in the qualifying examination. The petitioner does not challenge the statements of facts in Ex. P-1. Admittedly, he got only 275.5 marks to his credit. It follows that, on a selection of candidates for admission on State-wide merit basis without any reservation or district-war selection, the petitioner would not have got admission to the pre-medical course. The petitioner has no fundamental right to be enforced as sought to be done by this petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that candidates who have got less than 275 marks have been admitted to the pre-medical course this year on account of reservations and district-war selections held unlawful by this Court. That cannot be a matter for complaint by the petitioner. He can complain only of an infringement of his own right. In Kalyan Singh v. The State of U. P. (AIR. 1962 SC. 1183) where a private bus operator, whose permit became cancelled on the promulgation of a Scheme under S.68D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenged the right of the State Transport Undertaking to ply their buses without permits, the Supreme Court held "Nor is any fundamental right of the appellant infringed by the State Transport Undertaking plying its buses without permits, and a petition under Art.32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained unless a fundamental right of the applicant is infringed." 6. There is no merit in this petition, which is therefore dismissed in limine. Dismissed.