Indeed, I do not take lightly the important public interest that the applicants pointed to, which concerns the desire to ensure that an application for termination of term is based on a sufficient factual and legal basis. However, as is well known, even where the administrative authority seeks to promote proper interests, the starting point is that it must point to a clear and explicit source of authorization in the law (see, for example, the Public Defender's Office, in paragraph 83 of the judgment of the Vice President Solberg; Civil Appeal Authority 2558/16 Anonymous v. Compensation Officer - Ministry of Defense, paragraph 58 [Nevo] (5.11.2017)).
- Against this background, I will turn to the examination of the additional argument that was raised, according to which, as stated, section 4.d(3) of Resolution 4062 should be regarded as "The Civil Service Commission will coordinate the work of the committee." as the source of the Commissioner's authority not to convene the Committee. In my view, this section cannot serve as a sufficient source of authority.
- First, there is a real difficulty in accepting this argument in view of the historical background of the relevant government decisions. As I noted above, in the original wording of Resolution 4062, it was determined that the termination of the term of office of senior officers would be done in accordance with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee for Senior Appointments, which is headed by a retired Supreme Court justice. Only in a later decision, Resolution 1148, was it determined that with respect to some of the senior positions in the public service, including the Commissioner of Competition, the termination of the term of office would be made in accordance with a recommendation given by the Appointments Committee in its current composition. Against this background, she argued that already in Resolution 4062, the Civil Service Commissioner - who at the time did not sit at the head of the committee (but rather a retired Supreme Court justice, as stated) - was given the power to prevent its convening on his own initiative, seems to me to be a minefield.
- Second, and even on the merits, I did not find that it is possible to read into section 4.d(3) as aforesaid authorization for the existence of a preliminary-substantive examination by the Commissioner. In this regard, it should be noted that as a rule, the chairman of a body does not have a special status in relation to the other members of that body insofar as there is no explicit provision on the subject:
"In principle, the status of the chairman of a plural organ is the same as that of another member of the organ, unless and to the extent that the law assigns to him a role and powers as chairman. Among other things, in the number of votes cast in the organ for or against a particular decision, the vote of the chairman of the organ is not considered more important than that of any other member of the organ, unless there is a provision in the law stating that in the event of equal votes, the vote of the chairman will be decided" (Zamir Administrative Authority I, at p. 384).