Honest answer, and most people won't like it, but start at district, then high court and then move to SC. Two years in DC, one in HC and then move to SC and start your trajectory to be an AoR. Reasons being; actual litigation is in DC. I believe it must be made compulsory that every student spend atleast a year minimum in DC, that's where majority cases start from. HC is just an intermediary and one year there would be enough to help understanding how the case moves from DC to SC through HC. However the real power and paisa lies in SC. Being an AoR is definitely worth it. But you'll be a better SC lawyer when you've come through the grind of the lower courts. You'll be better able to utilise your experience. I have many batchmates and juniors who have gone straight to the SC and even now they haven't been able to go independent because of lack of understanding and experience of lower courts. Whereas those who worked in the state courts have built a good clientele and anyone coming form their state or district to the SC refers it to them.

This would down voted since it's a long way and people don't understand what "grind" means or the actual structure of the judiciary. We were never meant to directly start practice in the SC, yet here we are.

So if you're looking for a long career the best is work the lower courts. If you're looking for a shortcut gi immediately to the SC.

Join an established firm which pay you decent amount and have loads of district court litigation. A district court matter will shoot to HC and then SC, so it's better to understand appraisal of facts, how a witness is cross examined etc etc. One of the so called hot shot HC lawyer did not even know stages of trial. Before essay, he starting arguing with the judge to proceed with defence arguments. Badi besti vali baat hai, 313 k bayaan k nhi malum vakeel sahab ko.