In my opinion, the proceeding that was conducted in 2011 was a proper proceeding, and if the government had genuinely sought to return to 2011, it would probably have adopted a similar procedure today as well (and I will recall that in our judgment, which is the subject of the additional hearing, we did not necessarily order the use of a search committee, but only the existence of a competitive proceeding). In any case, it is not possible to hold the rope at both ends - both to cling to the 2011 ruling with longing and to reject the quasi-competitive process that underpinned it.
(-) A chain of positions on behalf of various administrative bodies - some of which were expressed after the judgment In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo] - Emphasize and sharpen the need to maintain the independence of senior officials in the public service, for whom independence is a necessary component of their role, and noted the advantages inherent in this context in procedural guarantees such as a competitive appointment process.
Data from recent years have raised difficulties and problems in the functioning of the public service in various indicators - data that make it increasingly important to appoint a commissioner with proven abilities who can initiate a real change in the public service.
(-) The conduct of the government itself, when in this context I noted as follows: "Today, there is not even an attempt to conceal the intention to appoint people who are well-off in the political echelon, and things are said in public by government officials. In fact, the government respondents' claims even raise a declaration of intent for political appointments in the public service, which raises concerns that the government's selection of the mechanism of an appointments committee (and at the beginning an advisory committee) is intended to make this possible" (at paragraph 61 of the judgment in the petitions).
Against this background, I was of the opinion that "the law must adapt itself to the changing reality, and the need to establish real guarantees for the protection of the independent, state and apolitical purpose of the position of civil service commissioner is immeasurably strengthened" (ibid., at paragraph 62). In any event, I emphasized that the court's refusal to intervene in the process of appointing the commissioner some 14 years ago was done against the background of the circumstances and facts that were before the court at the time, and this alone does not preclude the existence of judicial review in the present case.