However, even if I accept the assumption that the purpose of Section 6 Law is not necessarily the same The general purpose of the Appointments Law is difficult in my view to reach the conclusion that the purpose of the Section 6 She Quite the opposite of the general purpose of the law, and that the section is intended to enable the government to determine as it pleases the considerations for the appointment of the commissioner (including the appointment for considerations of conceptual proximity), without any guarantees whatsoever To reserve the place of professional and apolitical considerations. I will add, as I noted in my judgment (at paragraph 85), that in my opinion there is no room to learn about the purposes of the Section 6 The Appointments Law has the purpose of Article 21 to the same law, which deals with a different authority and in different circumstances.
- My colleague the judge Mintz, for its part, identified other indirect indications as to the intention of the legislature In section 6 to the law. In this context, my colleague refers to three excerpts:
(a) The original version of Section 6 As was brought to the first reading, which "included only the power to appoint the government without reference to an exemption from a tender" (paragraph 63 of my colleague's opinion);
(b) The words of the representative of the Ministry of Justice, Mr. Y. Glass, in one of the discussions in the Labor Committee: "Yes, we propose Clarify Section 19 shall not apply to the positions: Civil Service Commissioner and General Managers" (Minutes of the 18th Session of the Labor Committee, 3rd Knesset, 9 (March 11, 1959); emphasis added - 10).
(c) The words of the Prime Minister at the time, David Ben-Gurion, in one of the discussions in the plenum ahead of the first reading. By this, my colleague is apparently referring to the words of the Prime Minister at the time: "The complete separation, proposed by several speakers, between the government and the apparatus, and their proposal to hand over all authority over civil servants to a service committee independent of the government, is, in my opinion, absurd, harmful, and anti-democratic. [...] Regarding the Civil Service Commission, I have already said in the general comments that it is impossible to expropriate the apparatus from the government's authority, because it and only it is responsible for every official. The Knesset cannot call a civil servant to trial. The minister and the entire government are responsible for the actions of the clerk. and in order to be responsible for him, she must be authorized to give him instructions, to do and not to do" (D.C. 22.12.1958, 630).