With regard to the possibility of a one-time appointment process, it was noted that in Resolution 3793, the government decided to re-examine the method of appointing the Civil Service Commissioner, on the basis of a standing procedure to be formulated by the Legal Advisor to the Prime Minister's Office, and there are no reasons justifying deviating from this decision.
As for the proposal to examine the appointment of the next commissioner by the Advisory Committee, it was noted that this is problematic, inter alia, because it ignores Resolution 3793 regarding the need to examine the proposal of the Prime Minister's Office's legal counsel; that it is not supported by a professional infrastructure and is not reasoned; that it does not correspond to the characteristics of the position of the commissioner; and that it does not make it possible to achieve the purpose of securing a professional and impartial appointment. The Deputy Attorney General noted that all of these constitute a legal impediment to promoting this proposal.
- The next day, on June 19, 2024, the Attorney General sent a letter to the Prime Minister, stating that she had agreed to accept the recommendation of the Legal Counsel in the Prime Minister's Office and the Deputy Advisor, according to which a competitive appointment process should be conducted for the position of Civil Service Commissioner through a search committee in the proposed composition.
- Further to the above, on June 30, 2024, a government meeting was held in which the process of appointing the Commissioner was discussed, while hearing the position of the legal advisors on behalf of the Deputy Attorney General. During the meeting, the members of the government expressed their opposition to the position of the legal advisor, with their main argument being that there is no obligation to appoint the Civil Service Commissioner through a search committee. This is taking into account section 6 of the Appointments Law and the judgment of this court in High Court of Justice case 2699/11; that the positions brought to the advisory committee, such as the chief of staff and the police commissioner, are no less senior and influential than that of the civil service commissioner; and that most of the members of the proposed search committee are jurists or elected with the consent of jurists, in a manner that substantially contradicts the appointment authority granted to the government.
- On August 5, 2024, the Deputy Advisor sent a letter to the Cabinet Secretary stating that in light of the approaching end of the Civil Service Commissioner's term, a proposal for the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioner should be urgently submitted to the government. Subsequently, on August 8, 2024, a proposal for a decision to approve the outline proposed in the Cabinet Secretary's letter dated June 13, 2024, was placed on the government's table, ahead of its meeting on August 11, 2024. Indeed, on August 11, 2024, the government discussed the aforementioned proposal, and at the end of its meeting, a decision was made to approve the proposed format, namely the addition of the Civil Service Commissioner to the list of positions being examined by the Advisory Committee, with a clarification that the decision is valid only for the appointment of the next Commissioner (Decision 2129 of the 37th Government, "The Procedure for the Appointment of the Civil Service Commissioner and the Amendment of a Government Decision" (August 11, 2024) (hereinafter: Resolution 2129)).
The petitions that are the subject of the hearing
- Following the adoption of Resolution 2129, respondents 1-4 (hereinafter: the respondents) filed the petitions that are the subject of the judgment. On October 15, 2024, a hearing was held in the presence of the parties, after which a decision was given according to which the government would announce by October 28, 2024 whether it was willing to make another decision on the matter. Indeed, on October 28, 2024, the government passed a new decision, according to which an amendment to Resolution 2129 will be brought to a vote in one of the upcoming government meetings, which will include an ad hoc outline for the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioner through a special appointments committee headed by a judge appointed by the government and its members will be public representatives of the Commission's Appointments Committee, similar to the outline according to which the Civil Service Commissioner was appointed in Decision 3793 (Decision 2256 of the 37th Government, "The Procedure for the Appointment of the Civil Service Commissioner - A Hearing Further to the High Court of Justice's Decision of October 16, 2024" (October 28, 2024) (hereinafter: Resolution 2256). Subsequently, on November 4, 2024, the government made a decision to establish a one-time special committee to give its opinion on the candidate's qualifications and suitability for the position of Civil Service Commissioner, whose chairman will be Judge Lt. Efrati, and alongside him will serve two public representatives from the list of public representatives who are members of the Appointments Committee, who will be selected according to the customary round (Decision 2344 of the 37th Government, "The Procedure for the Appointment of the Civil Service Commissioner - Amendment to Government Decision No. 2129 - Manner of Appointment of the Special Appointments Committee for the Provision of Government Opinions to the Candidate" (November 4, 2024) (hereinafter: Resolution 2344).
- In view of this development, the respondents were given permission to amend their petitions, and they did indeed file amended petitions that were mainly directed at Resolution 2344, in which it was requested to instruct the applicants to determine a method of permanent appointment to the position of Civil Service Commissioner, which would include a competitive appointment process. Afterwards, an additional hearing was held in the presence of the parties, at the end of which an order nisi was issued instructing the applicants and the Attorney General to come and give a reason as to why the selection of the Civil Service Commissioner would not be carried out in a competitive process, and why a permanent procedure for the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioner would not be formulated. Subsequently, affidavits of reply were submitted, and on March 13, 2025, a third hearing was held, in which the parties' arguments were heard on one side or the other.
- The respondents' arguments (which will be presented below in summary and consolidated, although they were not necessarily argued in the same way by all of them), relied on a number of foundations.
First, Resolution 2344 was passed in contravention of previous decisions given by the government, and in particular Resolution 3793, in which it was determined that the method of appointing a civil service commissioner should be re-examined on the basis of a procedure to be formulated by the legal advisory bodies. Resolution 2344 also contradicts Resolution 345, which orders appointment through a permanent committee, as well as subsequent government decisions, such as Resolutions 4062 and 4470, all of which reflect the rules of administrative law, according to which the method of appointment must be appropriate to the nature of the position and ensure that a person with appropriate qualifications is appointed to the position. The government may change its decisions, but only on the basis of practical considerations and for weighty reasons. However, in our case, no substantive reason was given, let alone a weighty reason, which justifies such a blatant deviation from previous decisions. Moreover, the government is not permitted to deviate from Resolution 3793 at all, taking into account that it was passed following a legal proceeding conducted by this court in the matter Netz-Tsangut.