The appointment process for the Civil Service Commissioner is regulated by Section 6 of the Civil Service Law (Appointments), 5719-1959, which stipulates that the Government is the appointing authority and that the appointment is exempt from the requirement of a tender. Over the years, Civil Service Commissioners have been appointed through varying procedures, often through a special appointments committee that examined a single candidate proposed by the Government. Following petitions filed against the government’s decision to continue this practice, the court ruled in June 2025 that the government must establish a permanent mechanism based on a competitive process. A request for a further hearing was filed against this decision and was accepted by an expanded panel.

Main points of the majority opinion (Deputy President N. Solberg, Justice D. Mintz, and Justice Y. Wilner)
The majority opinion determined that there is no normative source obligating the government to adopt a competitive process:

• The wording of the law: Section 6 of the Appointments Law explicitly exempts the appointment of the Commissioner from the tender requirement. The justices ruled that the choice to grant an exemption from the central competitive process in the law (the tender) indicates the legislator’s intention to grant the government broad flexibility and discretion in this appointment.
• Practice and previous rulings: The method of appointment through an appointments committee has been customary for over 30 years and was previously approved in a Supreme Court ruling (HCJ 2699/11), which determined it to be a reasonable process.
• Existing oversight mechanisms: The special appointments committee, headed by a retired judge, is not a “rubber stamp committee”; it examines the candidate’s suitability, professionalism, and lack of political affiliation, thereby providing sufficient protection against improper appointments.
• Separation of powers: The court is not meant to replace the government’s discretion or to determine what the “desired” law is in its eyes, as long as the government acts within its legal authority.

Main points of the minority opinion (President Y. Amit and Justice D. Barak-Erez)
The minority justices were of the opinion that the obligation to hold a competitive process should remain in place:

• The Commissioner’s role as a “gatekeeper”: Given the Commissioner’s extensive powers and critical influence on the independence of the civil service, an appointment process that minimizes the intrusion of political considerations must be ensured.
• Change in circumstances: The changing reality in the civil service, including increased politicization and erosion of proper administration norms, necessitates adapting the law and establishing stronger procedural safeguards, such as a competitive process.
• Principle of equality and conflict of interest: A competitive process upholds the principle of equality by providing opportunities to suitable candidates. Furthermore, the concern of conflict of interest was noted when the political appointing authority is involved in legal proceedings, while the Commissioner influences appointments in the law enforcement system.

The implication of the ruling is that the government is permitted to complete the appointment process of the Civil Service Commissioner through the special appointments committee as determined in Government Decision 2344, and is not obligated to hold a competitive process. 

Read the full ruling

Justice Ministry

See Full Bio