"Whenever you have to choose between good people and loyal people - and this will usually be your choice as prime minister, not as a politician - do not hesitate, always choose the good, because the good will also be loyal, but the loyal will not become better" (Yitzhak Galnor-No , Mr. Commissioner: Behind the Scenes of Politics and Administration in Israel 568-569 (2003)).
When the prime minister, who is a political person, chooses the civil service commissioner himself in order to promote an obscure "policy" about the nature of which we know nothing, the result is the same: a political appointment of the civil service commissioner.
Those who will pay the price for this are all of us, the citizens of the state.
After these things
- After being brought before the opinions of my friends, I will add a few short comments.
- About Section 6 To the Appointments Law: My Fellow Vice President Solberg and the judges Mintz Willner Hanging Mountains In section 6 of the law, which, as aforesaid, grants an exemption from a tender under Article 19. But as my colleague, the judge, showed Barak-Erez, an exemption granted from obligation X does not necessarily mean an exemption from obligation Y. And from another angle: the tender is the crowning glory of the competitive process, as it is the most rigorous form (currently common in the public service) of this type of procedure. However, from the exemption from a tender, my colleagues conclude a sweeping and absolute exemption from competitive proceedings that are less rigid than a tender. Thus, instead of the general interpretation of "two hundred manas in general" (Bavli, Sanhedrin 31a), according to my friends, the opposite rule emerges, according to which "in general two hundred manas." I have not found a convincing explanation for this far-reaching reasoning.
I also did not find in the opinion of my friends, the Vice President Solberg and the judge Willner, a reference to the government's decision from 2018 and its implications for today's government decisions, as well as many other arguments raised by the parties before us.
- On the penetration of extraneous considerations into the public serviceRecently, however, this Court ruled, unanimously, that an administrative entity that is required to exercise sensitive appointment authority in the public service will be subject to various limitations in the realm of discretion in order to prevent the penetration of extraneous considerations as much as possible. I am referring to the judgment in the case of the High Court of Justice 3545-11-25 Boaron v. Attorney General [Nevo] (November 16, 2025), and its continuation in the High Court of Justice case 58681-11-25 Israel Bar Association v. Minister of Justice [Nevo] (December 3, 2025) - which dealt with the Minister of Justice's decision regarding the appointment of an accompanying and supervisory body for a sensitive police investigation. [For the sake of completeness, I will note that there will be another discussion in the affair, but it is Anonymous will deal with the individual investigation process that was in the background of the affair (see my decision in further hearing, High Court of Justice54128-11-25 [Nevo] as of December 4, 2025)].
The factual circumstances that stood in the background of that affair illustrate the importance of the role of the Civil Service Commissioner as a gatekeeper in the public service. This is due to the role of the Acting Civil Service Commissioner in that case to advise the Minister of Justice in the process of appointing an accompanying entity and to serve as a stamp of professional competence for the appointment process. This is just one recent example of the geometric position of the Civil Service Commissioner at highly sensitive decision-making junctures in the civil service - as a body required to function independently, professionally and impartially. Many of these junctions are far from the public's scrutiny, and their implications are often revealed only in retrospect. Unfortunately, I did not find in the opinion of my colleagues a satisfactory answer to the concern that foreign political considerations would penetrate the process of appointing the Civil Service Commissioner, and in any case also to all those junctures in which the Commissioner is involved by virtue of his position (and I will mention the position of the Government Counsel that the appointment of the Commissioner "Must be political").
- On the Functioning of the Civil Service: Members of the Vice President Solberg finds great importance to "the ability of the Commission to function, and of the civil service that depends on it" (paragraph 5 of his opinion). I found it difficult to reconcile this position with the position expressed in the judgment that was the subject of the further hearing, where he held that "We shouldn't Address issues such as the general conduct of the current government or the general state of the civil service" (at paragraph 76 of his opinion there; Emphasis added - 11). I will admit that I was puzzled in light of my colleague's willingness to take this figure into account as support for his approach that accepts the government's position, while according to him there is a Ignoring the very same consideration When examining government decisions in the light of the rules of administrative law.
In any case, I found it difficult to understand to whom the rebukes were directed regarding the delay in filling the position of civil service commissioner. I will recall that the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing was given nearly a year ago - when it was the government that submitted a request to hold an additional hearing, to which my colleague Justice granted Mintz. If the government had considered it of utmost importance to appoint a permanent commissioner as quickly as possible, it would have been able to advance it in the meantime in accordance with a competitive appointment mechanism (in accordance with the majority opinion in the judgment that is the subject of further hearing), even if it would later become clear - as my colleagues now believe - that the mechanism preferred by the government also complies with the rules of the law.
- And finally, On the Changes in Reality: Deputy President (Ret.) A. Rubinstein, it is said that "common sense is a member of the club." Similarly, reality is also a member of the club, and it is certainly not subject to "bar-legal". Giving weight to changes in governmental and administrative norms in recent years, especially with regard to appointments, is not only a matter of logic and common sense, but is a fundamental part of judicial activity. It was the judge S. Agranat who said, already 75 years ago, that "sometimes the process of vital development [of halakha] lies in - Y. A.] in the changing conditions of life" (Civil Appeal 58/50 Brenner v. Weinrich, IsrSC 5 1451, 1460 (1951)) - and these are basic concepts in all areas of law.
Therefore, it is precisely "when the ship is already sailing in stormy waters" (in the words of my colleague the Vice President Solberg, in paragraph 8 of its opinion), turning a blind eye to changes in reality violates the root of the court's role - which is entitled, as part of the system of checks and balances, to protect and protect against a stump or iceberg that could bring the ship down to the depths. We will also pay the price for this turning a blind eye (in the words of the Vice President in paragraph 8 of his opinion).