How many illegal moves are allowed in the recent rules worldwide

Good thinking. Or perhaps any number if it's played without FIDE rules. But I'll be glad to be able to tell the next blitz opponent who castles with both hands that he should stick to the rules.

#22
In blitz an illegal move is an immediate loss. The reason is clear: in blitz an unnoticed illegal move can get a huge advantage, so when noticed it should meet severe penalty. A strong blitz player once pulled a bishop in a drawn opposite colored bishop ending over a long diagonal to a square of the opposite color and then proceeded to win the endgame. 

#21
"A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his
move."
"the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the
rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has
just crossed."

In the context of
"c. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim that the player completed an illegal move before the claimant has made his move. Only after such a claim, shall the arbiter make a ruling. However, if both Kings are in check or the promotion of a pawn is not completed, the arbiter shall intervene, if possible.>>

I think it leaves the reader groping for a meaning, which shouldn't be the case, so it's incorrect on that score. That's because it conveys the strong implication that it was correct to start the opponent's clock. Let's put it another way. It wouldn't be used that way in English law because it would give that implication. The word "after" or possibly "subsequent to" might be used and great care would be taken to achieve clarity, whereas no such care was taken here. Taken in context, we're discussing the move immediately after the clock was pressed and so "not a week or a month after" doesn't apply. Anyway, that's my take on it, which I'm pretty sure would be agreed with by anyone drawing up statutes and laws in English.

You didn't say if you had made any previous illegal moves. 

Therefore, I don't see how the number of illegal moves even comes into question.

Therefore, unless you left something out, your opponent was wrong. Under the rules quoted above, the first remedy is to return to the previous position. 

For classical time control:

7.4 a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the
requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has
been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be
reinstated. 

It should not have resulted in an automatic loss.

#24
Maybe you should write to FIDE about the wording.
"subsequent to" seems less appropriate as the FIDE Laws of Chess are also meant for players and officials not proficient in English. "after" or "immediately after" might be better than "once".

Haha yes I agree. I would probably need to be a Professor of languages to have them take it seriously.

Twice, but in my opinion game should be declared immediate loss after first illegal move is made

#28
Why? In a classical time control or without a clock the illegal move does no big harm.
Say somebody castles and his king has moved before... immediate loss might be harsh. Or somebody castles over a square where the king would be in check. There is time to notice and time to correct.

In a blitz game the opponent might not notice, play his own move and then lose the game because of the unfair advantage gained by the illegal move. Rapid is in between.

Yes sir i saw that statement in fide laws but I didn't understand quite well.  I was winning the game and my opponent or neither I had promoted a pawn. I was in a winning position gave my opponent 3 checks and my opponent gave 1 check and other illegal move. Can you explain it more pls sir 😃 the fide law ? 

That's unsporting and therefore wrong.

The rules clearly state that in a classical time control, a player is allowed two illegal moves before they lose the game with the third one. Therefore your teacher was wrong. If it was a blitz game, however, your teacher was right.

hallo

No time limit was given 

If it was there it was like 40 min totally time. 

To play all the game for the selection

It is not complicated. When your opponent claimed you made an illegal move with the knight, you should have put the knight back. Since no other legal moves or captures with the knight were possible, you would have been free to make any other legal move.

The game should not have been declared as an automatic loss. 

It should be continued from the last legal position although since you didn't write down the moves, there may be some disagreement as to that position.

I would propose another game should be played.

#35
40 minutes would make it rapid. In that case the arbiter could decide to give a loss after 1 illegal move just like in blitz. He could also decide to allow 2 illegal moves like in classical.

#37
"I would propose another game should be played."
That makes no sense: if you stand badly then you make an illegal move to get a new game...

That wouldn't work when people know the rules.

Here, there is no reason to impute a bad motive to the opponent. It seems that no one knew the rules.