The High Court of Justice on Sunday heard arguments on the appointment of the Civil Service commissioner. The core question was whether there is a legal basis to compel the government to conduct a competitive procedure for filling the post, as argued by the petitioners.
The Civil Service Commission is the official supervisor of the state’s tens of thousands of civil servants. The commissioner is considered a central gatekeeper of the professional and apolitical character of public service. The commissioner’s authority includes chairing a large number of appointment committees for various high-level positions and approving government requests to recruit employees without a tender.
By press time, the High Court had not issued a ruling. The hearing was held before an expanded panel of five: Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit, Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg, and Justices Daphne Barak-Erez, David Mintz, and Yael Willner.
The role is being filled by Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz, who was the last permanent commissioner and was called upon to serve again after the government failed to appoint a permanent successor. Hershkowitz, who concluded his permanent term in December 2024, is only in an acting capacity, and his tenure was recently extended by an additional three months.
The appointment method is not codified in law. In 2018, the government formed an ad hoc committee to appoint Hershkowitz but requested that the attorney-general propose a permanent appointment method to be implemented beginning with the next commissioner.
However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the proposal and decided instead that he would personally choose the next commissioner, whose integrity (but not legal background) would then need to be vetted by the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee, bringing the matter to Sunday’s hearing.
Willner said that the proper order of operations would be to require the government to establish a procedure for appointing the commissioner, which could then be subject to review. She also noted her preference for a compromise, though it may already be too late.
She further noted that the government exempted this post from a tender process but did not amend the law even when it had the opportunity to do so, and that for years, commissioners have been appointed accordingly. The question now, she said, is whether this situation has reached a level of extreme unreasonableness.
Willner also raised the possibility of remanding the matter to the government for a more thorough examination, while Amit noted that the government had already had four opportunities to do so.
The government’s position is that while a competitive procedure may be desirable for the appointment, it is not legally required, and imposing one would exceed the court's jurisdiction.
The judges pressed government representative attorney David Peter for explanations. Amit said, “There is no question the commissioner’s appointment needs independence, impartiality, and professionalism… There is also no opposition to the position that the appointment falls to the authority of the government, but authority is one matter, and procedure is another.”
Is everything political?
Barak-Erez commented that the government’s decision “is vague and unreasonable” and fails to address the essential questions raised by petitioners. Willner added, “Even in the construct of a competitive process, it is ultimately the government that decides.”
Amit noted that the government repeatedly promised to set an orderly process but had failed to do so, hence the court’s determination of the need for a competitive procedure. Peter argued that the quality of the civil service is a political matter at its core.
Amit responded, “I read your submissions; for you, everything is political. When a citizen waits 20 minutes in the blazing sun at a bus stop, is that political? What is political about citizens’ daily lives?” Peter replied, “Yes, because decisions on where to invest resources are political questions.”
Willner remarked on the growing number of appointments made without tenders: “This is a troubling figure that should alarm every citizen… Was this considered by the government?” Peter replied that it was.
Willner said, “A competitive process is indeed preferable; it improves the appointment procedure, and we would all benefit. That is not the question. The question is: What is the legal source for obligating the government to conduct such a process?”
Eliav Breuer contributed to this report.