[Regarding Resolution 345 of the 28th Government: "Positions for which the appointment is made by the government or with its approval - Exemption from a tender according to Section 21 Law Civil Service (Appointments), 5719-1959 (September 14, 1999) - First, this decision was made before the judgment In a High Court of Justice case 2699/11and in any case cannot serve as a "consideration" that has taken place since the aforesaid judgment. In any event, and even for the substance of the matter, this decision states that there should be a search committee in relation to the appointment of "positions of a regulatory nature, in which the subject is responsible for safeguarding the public interest in a defined area, and for this reason a great deal of independence and professional independence is required of it." However, even if I assume that the position of Commissioner is of a regulatory nature, the obligation to hold a search committee for these positions is determined in relation to the positions that the government itself has determined, by virtue of Section 21 to the law, that they will be exempt from a tender. As explained above, when it is the government that determines the exemption from a tender - and not the legislature, as in our case - there is a special justification for imposing restrictions on the appointment process, in order to ensure that the exemption is granted for practical considerations only. Subsequently, the Standards Document of the The Civil Service Commission ("Criteria for the Implementation of Government Decision No. 345" (April 1, 2012)) also deals with positions for which the government has determined the exemption from a tender.
Regarding Resolution 4062 of the 31st Government, "Determining the Term of Service of Senior Officers in the Civil Service" (September 7, 2008); and to Resolution 4470 of the 31st Government, "List of senior positions in the civil service to which the arrangement regarding the determination of the term of office and the duration of the term of office or the period of service determined for each position" (February 8, 2009) - these decisions were also made before the judgment in High Court of Justice 2699/11. [Nevo]. In any event, on the merits of the matter, it emerges from the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing that since one non-extendable term has been allocated within the framework of these decisions, the position of the Commissioner is one of the "senior managerial-professional positions in which the independence and independence of the officer are of special importance, such as: positions in which the subjects are in charge of law enforcement, integrity and regulation", in a manner that strengthens the need to appoint the Commissioner in a competitive process. However, within the framework of these decisions, one non-extendable term was allocated for positions of the said type; They are for "senior managerial positions of heads of large systems in the civil service." It is therefore possible that the position of Commissioner is actually part of the second group of positions. In any event, even if the position of Commissioner is one of the first group of positions, this does not result in an obligation to appoint him in a competitive process].