[As I noted above, the minutes of the Labor Committee meeting of January 14, 1959 - in which an explicit and enlightening discussion of the purpose of the position of Civil Service Commissioner were brought - was not before my eyes at the time of writing the judgment in the petitions, and in any case it was not before my eyes when the judgment was handed down in the High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo]. In view of the content of that transcript, and in view of the technical malfunction for which it was not properly filed on the Knesset website, it is doubtful in my opinion whether what was stated in it was in the eyes of the other members of the panel in the High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo]. In my opinion, this new circumstance only strengthens the justification for re-examination In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo].]
- Members of the Vice-President Solberg, for his part, held in his judgment in the petitions that there was no justification for deviating from the judgment in the High Court of Justice case 2699/11, [Nevo] His reasons for this were presented in his detailed judgment. Similarly, my colleague the judge Mintz He reiterates his opinion on the same preliminary question - is there justification for re-examining the case of the High Court of Justice? 2699/11 [Nevo] - And comes up with a negative answer. However, it is important to emphasize that in addition to the changes in circumstances that have occurred since the judgment was rendered in the High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo] As detailed above, there has since been another and no less significant change: the decision to order an additional hearing of the judgment in the petitions, and to put the conclusion set forth in it for reconsideration by a complex panel.
In the framework of the petitions that are the subject of the additional hearing, we have before us the question of whether it is appropriate to revisit (in the Telta Panel) a previous judgment that was also given in the Telta Panel. This is a step that this court is authorized to take, and has even taken in practice more than once (see, for example, the The Medical Association), but it is generally reserved for exceptional cases. In contrast, at the current stage, we convened in an expanded panel, following the decision of my colleague the judge Mintz about holding another hearing - which is The Natural and Obvious Forum To revisit previous rulings given by this Court in more limited panels. These include, in our case, both the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing, Both the judgment In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11 [Nevo] that preceded him. In these circumstances, in my view, there is a difficulty in my colleague's choice to leave the judgment in the case of the High Court of Justice 2699/11 [Nevo] As a starting point and a reference point for examining the government's decisions that are on the agenda, even at the current deliberative stage.
- Even on the merits of the matter, it is worth reiterating that the entire broad legal spectrum that has been laid out before us today in the framework of the present proceeding was not presented to the court at all in 2011, and the understanding of the importance of the role of the Civil Service Commissioner has also been sharpened over the years. Go out and learn that the 2011 judgment did not even mention the word "gatekeeper" regarding the position of civil service commissioner. In addition, in the 2011 judgment, a comparison was made between the position of civil service commissioner and the position of director general of a government ministry and the position of chief of staff; These comparisons, in and of themselves, attest to the extent to which the concept of the position, as presented to the court at the time, was a small claim that was far from the perception of the position today.
And to be precise: The Role Itself has not changed, but over the years there has been a change in the legal-public-institutional perception regarding the nature and extent of the role of the Civil Service Commissioner (as expressed by my colleague, the Vice President). Solberg Regarding the appointment of Mr. Kahlon as Acting Commissioner (High Court of Justice 10548-01-25 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. Prime Minister, paragraph 8 [Nevo] (28.1.2025))). In fact, already on the day the judgment was handed down in 2011, there was a change in circumstances, with the publication of the State Comptroller's report, following which a benchmark document was formulated. In this document, which was not available to the panel at the time, a substantial distinction was made between the types of positions and senior positions in the public service, when the term of office of the Commissioner was allocated between me and myself - and it is difficult to dispute that the position of Commissioner falls, from a material point of view, into the category to which it was classified in the criteria document, according to which "the officer is responsible for safeguarding the public interest and requires a great deal of independence and professional independence" (paragraph 56 of the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing).
- Further to the remark of my colleague Justice Mintz (in paragraph 89 of his opinion), according to which Government Resolution 4062 classified the position of Commissioner in the group of positions in section 2(a)(1) of the Resolution, which includes two types of positions (senior managerial positions; senior managerial-professional positions in which independence and independence are of particular importance) - it is also worth mentioning in which category Anonymous The position of Commissioner was included in Resolution 4062. In the same decision Abstained The government should include the position of civil service commissioner in the group of positions in section 2(c)(3) of the same resolution: "senior managerial-professional positions, the subjects of which are responsible for the implementation of government policy, and which require a high degree of trust and coordination between the officers and members of the government."
- Therefore, it is not for nothing that the Legal Advisor to the Government changed its taste after 2011, and I therefore do not share my colleague's criticism of this. We, too, as judges of a court that encourages the establishment of procedures and standards for the implementation of administrative law, are obligated to reconsider our position, this time against the backdrop of these normative changes - because of which what was reasonable in 2011 is no longer reasonable in 2026.
- In fact, the government itself realized that what was true in the past is no longer applicable, so it made its decision in 2018 3793 - She testified that this was the last time and that in preparation for the election of the commissioner for the next time, "the government will be required in the future to formulate a procedure that will be formulated by the legal advisor of the Prime Minister's Office, in consultation with the attorney general regarding the methods of appointing the civil service commissioner." The next time is now before us, and after four "ad hoc" appointments, the time has come to repay the bill. As is well known, "a public authority, which has received a commitment to itself, must therefore fulfill its obligations with a great deal of honesty and fairness" (High Court of Justice 376/81 Lugasi v. Minister of Communications, IsrSC 36(2) 449, 470 (1981)).
- If a change in the legal-institutional-public perception regarding the nature of the role of the Civil Service Commissioner is not enough, the reality on the ground has also changed, and we have already pointed to "an increase in indications of politicization in the public service", such as the increase in the number of positions exempt from tenders; The dismal data about poor results in public services; and the lack of effectiveness of the state's execution (in paragraph 58 of the judgment). Needless to say, even these figures were not presented to the court in 2011. To all this must be added the special challenges facing the public service today due to the changes that have taken place in the labor market in recent years, including the lack of staffing of positions in the public service and the competition with the private sector for the best and most talented professionals - changes that are expected to accompany the public service for many years, and not only in the immediate aftermath of the next appointment.
Ignoring all of these is liable to indicate turning a blind eye and that this court is not among the people in which it sits, and in my view, such an approach is liable to lead to a slippery slope and damage to the public's trust in the court (in response to paragraphs 149-150 of the opinion of my colleague Justice Mintz). This is only intensified against the background of the poor functioning of the public service during the "Iron Sword" War, as pointed out by the State Comptroller in a report on "Government Management of the Civil Sphere during the Iron Sword War" (September 3, 2025). Therefore, I do not accept my colleague's position that the data regarding the status of the civil service are relevant to the candidate's suitability for the position, but are not relevant to the determination of the selection mechanism (paragraph 100 of his opinion). The selection mechanism should be derived from the challenges facing the public service, and it should be noted that the selection mechanism has a major impact on the professional-managerial quality of the candidate to be selected and the degree of his independence and independence from the political echelon.