Case Number
HCJ 6163/92
Date Decided
3-23-1993
Decision Type
Original
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The sixth respondent (Ginosar) was formerly a member of the General Security Service. He was involved in the ‘300 bus’ affair and the ‘Nafso’ affair.
In the ‘300 bus’ affair, a bus was seized by terrorists. The army stormed the bus, rescued the passengers and two of the terrorists were arrested alive. It was later announced that all the terrorists died in the rescue. A commission of enquiry was appointed, and Ginosar was one of its members. He acted in this capacity to cover up the involvement of some of the General Security Service personnel in the case. Ginosar received a pardon with regard to this from the President of the State and was not indicted.
In the ‘Nafso’ affair, a suspected terrorist was interrogated by a team headed by Ginosar. The interrogators acted improperly in the interrogation and perjured themselves in the trial in which Nafso was convicted. The matter was subsequently investigated by the Landau Commission, which recommended not indicting Ginosar.
Ginosar was recently appointed director-general of the Ministry of Building and Housing. The petition argues that in view of his involvement in the ‘300 bus’ affair and the ‘Nafso’ affair, he was unfit to be appointed to such a senior position in the Civil Service.
Held: An administrative body making an appointment must take into account the criminal past of the candidate, notwithstanding the absence of a criminal conviction and notwithstanding the granting of a pardon by the President, if there is reasonable evidence of a criminal past. In the circumstances of the present case, Ginosar was not a suitable candidate for a senior position in the Civil Service, and his appointment was therefore disqualified.
Keywords
Administrative Law -- Discretion
