JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The Departmental Promotion Committee’s proceedings have been produced before the Court for perusal. 2. The post of Senior Scale Stenographer is in feeder category for promotion to the post of Personnel Assistant, as per the rules called “The H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited Staff Recruitment and Promotion (Revision) Rules, 1985”. Petitioner is at Sr. No.3 of the final seniority of Senior Scale Stenographers, as it stood on 31.5.2007. The Departmental Promotion Committee for filling up the post of Personnel Assistant was convened on 14.1.2009. The Departmental Promotion Committee after comparing grading of ACRs found respondent No.2 suitable for promotion for the post of Personnel Assistant and respondent No.3 name was kept in panel. Respondent No.2 has been graded “very good” and respondent No.3 was graded as “outstanding”. However, since the difference of length of service of respondent No.2 and 3 was more than two years, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the promotion of respondent No.2 as Personnel Assistant. 3. The post in question was to be filled up on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The Departmental Promotion Committee has looked into the ACRs to adjudge the suitability of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondents No.2 and 3 and has found respondent No.2 suitable for promotion to the post of Personnel Assistant. No mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner against the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 4. Mr. B.C. Negi has also argued that ACRs of his client were misplaced. However, it has come in the reply that ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2207-2008 were got written and completed from the officers/authorities with whom the petitioner has worked and were available with the respondent-corporation. The ACRs for the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 were written by the General Manager. Respondent No.4 has given his explanation regarding misplacement/non-completion of ACRs of the petitioner as per the averments made in para 8 of the reply. Petitioner’s case for grant of benefit under A.C.P. Scheme was under active consideration as per the reply. 5. Mr. B.C. Negi has also argued that test ought to have been conduced to see the suitability of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondents No.2 and 3 for promotion to the post of Personnel Assistant. Holding of departmental/trade test for the skilled category has been scraped vide decision dated 9.4.1999. 5. Mr. B.C. Negi has also argued that test ought to have been conduced to see the suitability of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondents No.2 and 3 for promotion to the post of Personnel Assistant. Holding of departmental/trade test for the skilled category has been scraped vide decision dated 9.4.1999. The scope of judicial review for interference with the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee is very limited. Moreover, as noticed hereinabove, no mala fide has been alleged against the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee has been convened strictly as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the conditions of service of employees of the respondent-corporation. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by upholding the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. However, respondent-corporation is directed to grant the petitioner benefit under A.C.P. Scheme immediately after the completion of 8 years service, if not already granted. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. The record of the respondent-corporation be returned under proper receipt.