(-) To this I will now add that High Court of Justice 2699/11 [Nevo] Business too Grounds for Intervention Different from the one in which I focused on my judgment in the petitions. Although I ultimately concluded that the current government's decision was also extremely unreasonable, the center of gravity of my judgment lies in the question of whether only substantive considerations were taken into account - an issue that was not discussed or decided In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo].
(-) The selection mechanism that was on the agenda at the time of the hearing In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11, [Nevo] There was not a "classic" appointments committee - in which the prime minister chooses a single candidate on his behalf and presents it to the nominations committee, and upon its approval brings the candidate to a vote by the government - but rather a quasi-competitive process in nature, which is not far from the format of a search committee. I will mention that the proceeding that was on the agenda In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo] began an examination on behalf of a "search team", which issued public publications, made proactive inquiries and examined Approx. 150 (!!!) Potential candidates. Later, the team brought four candidates to the Prime Minister's Examination, who chose the preferred candidate, and the latter was brought in In addition to for examination by the Appointments Committee. Against this background, it is easy to understand why the court at the time did not find any fault in the proceeding and did not believe that a specific competitive procedure should be imposed on the government in the form of a search committee.
Therefore, I must, with all due respect, disagree with the ruling of my colleague Justice Mintz that we are currently dealing with "taking a method of appointment that is completely identical to that taken by the government for the purpose of appointing the Civil Service Commissioner in 2011" (in paragraph 128 of his opinion).