The Mayor is the appointing authority in the appointment of executive engineer. The Ministry of LGRD may be the controlling Ministry of DCC, but has got no authority in the matter of appointment in any posts of DCC.
The Appellate Division held that on considering the position of the writ petitioner in the service of DCC, Appellate Division finds that he joined DCC on 21.06.1998 on being posted in the aforesaid project, DUTP as executive engineer in DCC which is still continued. The Ministry of Establishment by its letter dated 20.05.2001 ac-corded approval, to absorption and creation/transfer in the revenue budget of 18 temporary posts including two posts of executive engineer together with appointment of personnel in said project, DUTP in the organogram of the Transport Engineering Division (TED) of DCC. While the sanction of the organogram was given by the Ministry of Establishment to two posts of executive engineers of the said project along with the officers holding the posts were also sanctioned. Pursuant to such approval, DCC already by its order dated 08.11.2001 transferred 15 employees including four temporary employees of the project in TED in such list of officers/employees, why the writ petitioner was not included could not be justified by DCC. If the said project, DUTP were meant to be sanctioned by transfer to newly created division, TED the service of the writ petitioner stood regularized and transferred to the said division after conclusion of the project.
Dhaka City Corporation -Vs.- Md. Touhiduzzaman and others. (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 259-264

Dhaka Municipal Corporation Ordinance, 1983
Section 155 r/w
Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance, 1983
Section 154 r/w
Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 102
Without resorting to the alternative remedy available, the writ petition is not legally maintainable– Section 155 of the Dhaka Municipal Corporation Ordinance, 1983. Section 154 of the Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance, 1983 provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the corroboration or any officer in pursuance of the said ordinance or rules or by laws may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority within the period of limitation and any order passed in the appeal shall be final. If the appellant has got any grievance against the allotment, he could have preferred an appeal but without seeking redress to the proper authority in accordance with law moved the writ petition challenging the allotment. Without resorting to the alternative remedy available, the writ petition is not legally maintainable. In view of the above, the learned Judges of the High Court Division have committed no error of law in discharging the rule nisi. The appeal is therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. …A.B.M. Asgar =VS= Administrator & Chairman of Allotment Committee, Dhaka, [8 LM (AD) 98] ....View Full Judgment