Second, Resolution 2344 was passed contrary to the position of the legal advisors, without any weight being given to their position or the procedure formulated by them, and without presenting a reason for the deviation from their position. This fact shows that there were procedural flaws in the decision, that it was an arbitrary decision, and that it even deviated from the rules of administrative law, according to which the government is obligated to act in accordance with the opinion of the legal counsel.
Third, Resolution 2344 was passed on the basis of an inappropriate factual and legal basis. This is not only in view of the disregard for the position of the legal advisors, but also in view of the fact that during the government meetings that dealt with the appointment process, no professional and factual basis was presented that could explain why the appointment process should be promoted through an appointments committee and not a search committee. To this, it should be added that the decision was made without requiring up-to-date data regarding the state of the civil service in recent years, which require that the appointment be made through a search committee whose composition will be independent.
Fourth, Resolution 2344 is extremely unreasonable. This is, inter alia, because it ignores relevant considerations as detailed above; harms the state and professional nature of the position of the commissioner and leads to the politicization of this position; ignores the changes that have taken place in the civil service in recent decades; and seeks to "duplicate" an appointment process that has been proven to be inappropriate. In addition, the decision is unreasonable because it ignores the nature of the commissioner's position as one that should be filled by way of an independent and independent search committee, similar to other senior positions. This conclusion is required both by the Standards Document and by other government decisions that classified the position of Commissioner as a position in which the independence and independence of the subject is of particular importance (Resolution 4062 of the 31st Government, "Determining the Term of Term of Term of Senior Officers in the Civil Service" (September 7, 2008) (hereinafter: Resolution 4062) and 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 Service and the Duration of the Term of Service or the Period of Service Determined for Each Position" (February 8, 2009) (hereinafter: Resolution 4470)).