If so, an interest Jerbi Deal with the relevant considerations for the appointment Director General of a Government Ministry. However, as detailed in detail above, The legislative history of the Appointments Law shows that there are significant differences between the perception of the position of the Civil Service Commissioner and the Director General of the Ministry. The first owes a duty of loyalty to the public and the second is a position of trust of the appointer. Therefore, it appears that the reasons for dismissing the position of Director General from a tender pursuant to Section 19 of the Law are substantially different from the reasons for granting an exemption to the position of Commissioner. In these circumstances, I see no reason to learn for our purposes from the characteristics of the position described in the matter Jerbi, but by way of opposition.
- In any event, I will clarify: as I noted above, I agree with my colleagues that the consideration regarding "the professional ability of that candidate to carry out the government's policy" is not only legitimate, but also Important The nature of the Commissioner's role, and accordingly also the determination of the boundaries of the process for his appointment. This consideration clearly derives from the purposes of the Appointments Law, which include preserving its character The Professional of the public service and of the commissioner in particular. I also agree, of course, to the clarification of my colleague Justice Mintz that "the consideration that should dictate the appointment is the candidate's qualifications, and an appointment based on political considerations betrays the confidence of the public that authorized the appointing authority [...] This is the case in general and so in particular with regard to the Civil Service Commissioner, who by his nature is not a position of trust of a political overtone" (at paragraph 120 of his opinion). On the contrary, if skills and professionalism are our top priority, then the government can be expected to present weighty arguments that justify Avoidance From a competitive appointment process.
- The question of the role of the candidate's "professional positions" in determining the appointment process is a weighty question whose answer depends to a large extent on the definition of this term. Are its boundaries limited to considerations such as "the candidate's professional positions in the management of human capital", as suggested by my colleague the justice? Mintz (in paragraph 120 of his opinion)? Or is it a broader term - which also encompasses, as the government's counsel argued in one of the hearings in the petitions, "considerations that are not purely professional. They involve a worldview. a political, political, economic, political worldview in the philosophical, non-partisan sense" (Minutes of the hearing of the petitions of February 6, 2025, at p. 32, paras. 16-17)?
- Already during the hearing of the petitions, and also at the additional stage of the hearing, we tried to get a response from the government and its counsel that would enable us to answer this question. Unfortunately, however, we encountered categorical refusal on the part of the government to present What is it The same professional "policy" in the light of which it intends to examine the suitability of candidates for the position of Civil Service Commissioner (see paragraphs 69, 73 and 88 of the judgment in the petitions). We also found no clarification or hint of the policy that the government sought to promote in 2018 with the appointment of the current commissioner, and whether the same obscure policy succeeded or failed over the years. It seems that the word "policy" has become a magic word that is pulled out of a sheath for the purpose of thwarting judicial review.
Instead, the government's counsel noted the government's intention to appoint a commissioner on the basis of considerations."that they are not purely professionaland its desire to "work with someone who has an affinity or affinity in terms of worldview" (see paragraphs 43 and 51 above). It seems, therefore, that according to the government's own approach, considerations regarding the candidate's professional positions on professional-managerial issues such as human capital management are in any case not at the center of the appointment process that it supports.
- In these circumstances, I do not see the need to delve into the question at this time What is the boundary line separating a position Professional, Position Professional-Political And she stood Politically. In any case, this issue is not the focus of the proceeding at hand, which focuses only on the question of whether a competitive appointment process for the position of Commissioner should be determined, or not. As I noted in my judgment in the petitions, "In my opinion, the proceedings in this case are not the appropriate venue for determining the exact boundaries of the process of appointing a civil service commissioner - since we have not heard detailed arguments on this level, and since there has not yet been a substantive dialogue on the subject between government and legal advisory bodies" (in paragraph 75 of my judgment); It can be expected that the procedure that will be determined will give expression to the examination of the candidates' professionalism, with all that this entails. AnywayI wholeheartedly agree with the position of my colleague the judge Mintz According to it, "in order to justify taking into account professional positions for the purpose of realizing a certain policy in a concrete appointment, it is sufficient to say that it is necessary to present a policy that the government wishes to promote" (at paragraph 122 of his opinion). In my opinion, this is also true with regard to the administrative decision regarding the determination of the Procedure The appointment.
- If so, my position remained as it was in the judgment that was the subject of the additional hearing - where I noted that "the purpose of the Appointments Law and the nature of the role of the Commissioner delimit the set of relevant considerations that must be taken into account when appointing the Commissioner and determining the procedure for his appointment. This group includes, in summary, considerations of Professionalism (i.e., skills and suitability for the position); and considerations of Independence and apolitical and only these considerations" (in paragraph 36 of my judgment; emphases in the original - 11). These words are only further strengthened in light of the new support for the legislature's intention as to To Section 6 to the law.
On the Current Normative Status of the High Court of Justice 2699/11
- Another important clarification relates to the judgment in the High Court of Justice case 2699/11, [Nevo] which served, for some of the parties, as a starting point for examining the government's decision on the agenda.
- As you may recall, In the framework of High Court of Justice 2699/11 [Nevo] The Petitioner sought to instruct the government to use a search committee for the purpose of appointing the Civil Service Commissioner, due to the claim that the mechanism chosen by the government was extremely unreasonable. The petition was rejected unanimously - in the Telta panel, of which I was one of its members - and it was determined that such unreasonableness had not been proven. In the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing, I noted a number of relevant differences between the legal question that arose In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo] and between our case, as well as changes in circumstances that occurred after the judgment was rendered, and which, in my view, justified a new examination of it. For the sake of convenience, I will briefly mention the following:
(-) High Court of Justice 2699/11 [Nevo] Dealt with another legal question: the question of whether the government should be instructed to use the mechanism Search Committee Specifically; whereas in our case we are dealing with a broader question regarding the need for some kind of competitive proceeding.