Doctor in Nitish Kumar Hijab Row Yet to Join Duty as Deadline Ends Today

The controversy surrounding the removal of an Ayush doctor’s veil at a government event in Bihar continues, with Nusrat Parveen yet to report for duty even as the deadline for joining her posting expires on December 31.

Parveen, whose naqab was removed by Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar during an appointment letter distribution programme in Patna last week, has not joined her assigned position so far. Officials said December 31 was the final date for reporting, and failure to do so could result in the cancellation of her appointment.

There has been no official communication from Parveen or her family regarding her decision. Sources familiar with the matter said she was posted to the Sabalpur Primary Health Centre in Patna Sadar but has not completed the mandatory reporting process, which requires candidates to first present themselves at the civil surgeon’s office before assuming charge.

The incident that triggered the controversy occurred on December 23 at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat in Patna, where newly appointed Ayush doctors had gathered to receive appointment letters. A video of the interaction, in which the Chief Minister questioned Parveen’s attire and removed her veil, circulated widely on social media, sparking political debate over personal choice, religious expression and public conduct.

Amid the backlash, Bihar Governor Arif Mohammad Khan sought to defuse tensions, describing the episode as being unnecessarily politicised and stressing that it should not be viewed as a dispute.

The principal of the Government Tibbi College and Hospital, where Parveen is currently enrolled as a second-year student, said the joining deadline had been extended in view of the circumstances but no final decision has yet been communicated. He added that Parveen still has the option of either joining government service or continuing her higher studies.

As the deadline lapses, uncertainty remains over Parveen’s future in government service, even as the incident continues to draw attention to broader questions around individual rights, public office conduct and administrative procedures.