Tal v. Civil Service Commissioner

My Petition before Israeli Sup. Ct.

CLICK to get information (English & Hebrew)

Background

In 1995 a statute (initially legislated in 1958) named "proper administration" was amended. It was another attempt to improve the efficiency of the civil service. Any civil servant should reply a letter within forty five days. A failure to answer within ninety days means... a refusal to answer! Herein a proof that the law has been fake ever since.

On December 22, 1996, I asked (by a certified letter) the Israeli Civil Service Commissioner certain question focusing on disclosure of information concerning civil servant's personal files (it was due to the libelous letter implanted in my personal file at RAFAEL).

Within ten days I received a written memo acknowledging my query and a promise saying that the deputy, Mr. Haim Zonenfeld, should answer my question soon. However I've not received his answer timely. Following fifty days I wrote a reminder. The deputy, Mr. Haim Zonenfeld, personally called me telephonically and excused that they had "likely lost this letter" [sic]. Promptly I sent him a copy by facsimile. Regardless, he failed to answer timely within additional five months. Only then I filed my petition, Bagatz 4556/97 before the Israeli Supreme Court.

English Translation of The Petition photocopy (Hebrew)

The Supreme Court in Jerusalem

Bagatz 4556/97
Doron Tal v. Civil Service Commissioner
Filing: July 23, 1997
Sup. Ct.

Doron Tal ID x-xxxxxxx-x
69a Ramim St., Karmiel 21862
by attorney Eliyahu Ziegler
2 Hillel St., Jerusalem 94581
Tel: 02-6255987 Fax: 02-6258016 The Petitioenr
- versus -

Shmuel Hollander, Civil Service Commissioner
Haim Zonenfeld, Deputy Civil Service and Public Relations
3 Kaplan St., Hakyria, Jerusalem 91919
both represented by State Attorney The Respondents

Petition for writ of mandamus

Hon. Court is moved hereby to issue a conditional writ of mandamus, instructing respondents to reason under the provisions of section 2 (gimel) of the Law Amending Administration Arrangments (decisions and reasoning) 5719-1958 (hereafter: The Law), what would be the reason or reasons for their abstantion from answering petitioner, to his questions as raised in his letter dated December 22, 1996 (Appendix A).

The facts:

On December 22, 1996, petitioner wrote a letter (Appendix A) to respondent 1 seeking his response to certain questions concerning Notice NH/33 dated August 8, 1995 (Appendix B), sigend by the former Civil Service Commissioner. Mr. Itzhak Galnur.
On December 30, 1996, a letter (Appendix C) was served on petitioner by which Senior Assistant to respondent 1 informed that the letter was transferred to respondent 2, who would directly respond.
Respondent 2 failed to resp[ond within the time as prescribed in section 2 (alef) of the Law Amending Administration Arrangements (decisions and reasoning) 5719-1958.
Therefore petitioner served on respondents reminders (Apendices D and E), on February 2, 1997.
In a telephone call on March 10, 1997, respondent 2 asked petitioner to send him by facsimile his first letter (Appendix A) and the petitioner did so promptly (Appendix F).
Petitioner has never received an answer to his questions in Appendix A, also has not received a reason why no answer should be given to him to his questions serving the interests of the public.
Petitioner would plead that respondents abstained an answer in violation of section 6 (beit) to the Law.
Petitioner would plead that a citizen who appeals before the Civil Service Commission is eligibile to obtain a timely answer, not later than prescribed by the Law.
Accordingly, the Hon. Court is moved to issue a conditional order as requested and after responses of the respondent are accepted, the Hon. Court would issue writ of mandamus enforcing respondents:

to answer the questions as raised in petitioner's letter dated December 22, 1996 (Appendix A).
to grant petitioner his legal expenses