Honble CHAUHAN, J.–Petitioner preferred this writ petition for issuing direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant (Clerical) as per para 26 of the Promotion Policy for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff, 1976. Petitioner was initially appointed as a member of the sub staff in the Divisional Office of the United India Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 1., vide orderdt. 17.2.86 and was confirmed with effect from 28.8.86. Petitioner was not possessing the qualification of secondary school. He acquired `Prathama with English from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad in 1987, as is evident from certificate dated 10.11.87 contained in Annex.2 to the petition. Petitioner made a representation for his promotion to the post of Record Keeper claiming that he was eli-gible for the post. As his representation had not been considered, he preferred writ petition No.958/89 before this court, which was disposed-of vide judgment and order dt. 4.4.90 contained in Annex.4 to the petition, whereby this court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law. The respondents promoted the petitioner vide order dt. 21.5.90. It was clarified in the order that only for the purpose of seniority, his promotion shall be deemed to have been made on 30.6.89. Immediately after two days of his promotion to the post of Record Keeper, petitioner moved an application on 23.5.90 contained in Annex.7 to the petition claiming that as his promotion had been made with effect from 30th June, 1989, he was entitled for promotion to the post of Assis-tant in the vacancies of 1989. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dt. 23.7.90 contained in Annex.8 and also by subsequent orders dt.27.12.90, 2.1.91, 27.2.89 and 7.3.91 contained in Annexs.10, 11, 13 and 14 respectively to the writ petition on the ground that in 1985, the qualification of `Prathama had been de-recognised by the competent Authority of the Union ofIndia and the same decision was subsequently made applicable in cases of the employees of the respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing the impugned orders dt. 23.7.90, 27.12.90, 2.1.91, 27.2.89 and 7.3.91, i.e. Annexs. 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 respectively. (2). Heard Mr. N.M. Lodha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.P. Guptalearned counsel for the respondents. (3). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing the impugned orders dt. 23.7.90, 27.12.90, 2.1.91, 27.2.89 and 7.3.91, i.e. Annexs. 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 respectively. (2). Heard Mr. N.M. Lodha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.P. Guptalearned counsel for the respondents. (3). The bone of contention of the petitioner is that once the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Record Keeper giving due recognition to his qualification of `Prathama, it is no more open to the respondents to reject his claim for further promotion to the post of Assistant on the ground that the qualification of `Prathama had been de-recognised, particularly in view of the fact that the vacan-cies on the post of Assistant occurred in 1989 and the petitioner was claiming the post of Assistant in the vacancies of 1989. As there had been no communication of de- recognition prior to 1989, the same cannot be taken into consideration. The petition is heard alongwith other connected S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4313/90 ``Ramchandra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., wherein the documents havebeen filed by the respondents dated 17.10.86 and 19.11.86 contained in Annex.R./1 and R/2. Letter dated 17.10.86 has also been filed in the instant petition, as Annex.R/1, which abundantly make it clear that qualification of `Prathama had been de-recognised vide order dt. 17.10.86 by the Department of Personnel of the respondents and the same had been communicated to the present respondentsalso. After examining the aforesaid two documents, I reach unresistible conclusion that derecognition of petitioners qualification came into effect in 1986 itself. Respondents have taken a categorical stand to this effect in their reply to the writ petition and petitioner has chosen not to controvert the same by filing a rejoinder affidavit. The contention, thus raised, is preposterous. Another unescapable conse-quence of it is that even promotion of the petitioner to the post of Record Keeper is contrary to the policy of 1976 as he was not eligible for it for the reason that he obtained ``Prathama in 1987, after its derecognition by respondents. Factual mistakes are liable to be rectified at any subsequent stage. Petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate that once he has been promoted by mistake, it gives him anabsolute and unqualified right to perpetuate the illegality, caused by the said mistake, for ever. (4). Factual mistakes are liable to be rectified at any subsequent stage. Petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate that once he has been promoted by mistake, it gives him anabsolute and unqualified right to perpetuate the illegality, caused by the said mistake, for ever. (4). Petitioner was admittedly appointed as a member of the sub staff w.e.f. 17.2.86 and confirmed on that post w.e.f. 28.8.86. Petitioner got the certificate of `Prathama on 10.11.1987. The same had been derecognised in 1986. He was promoted on 21.5.90 w.e.f. 30.6.89 though only for the purpose of seniority. Thus, petitioners promotion is de hors the Policy of 1976 and, thus, illegal. The question of giving further promotion to the post of Assistant cannot and must not arise. This issue has been considered by the Honble Apex Court in Smt. Ravindra Kaur Sharma vs. State of Punjab (1), Smt. Herpal Kaur Chahal vs. Director, Punjab Industries (2),State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shyama Pardhi (3) and Dr. S.K. Kacker vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors. (4), wherein it has been held that appointments made in contravention of the recruitment Rules are illegal and persons so appointed, have been found ineligible even to continue after completing several years of service. In Herpal Kaur Chahals case (supra), the Honble Supreme Courtrejected the contention of the petitioner therein that she had already worked for sixteen years and may be allowed to continue on the post She was holding. As the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Record Keeper is in contravention of the policy and it has wrongly been made, it is for the respondents to consider whether he can be allowed to continue on the post of Record Keeper. However, in view ofthe law laid down by the Apex Court as referred-to above, he cannot be permitted to abuse the process of the court by making misrepresentation that he is eligible for further promotion to the post of Assistant. (5). Petition is devoid of any merit and hence accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.