In contrast to the two forbidding and permissive opinions, the scholars of the Hanafi school of thought and Ibn Qassem of the Maliki school
[8] believed that it is permissible to appoint a woman to certain positions in certain areas. For example, they allowed the appointment of a female judge to matters on which she could serve as a witness, which is to say, on any matter, except
Hudud (Penal Law) and
Qisas (Criminal Law).
[9]
According to an opinion of other Hanafi religious scholars, the appointment of a woman to a judicial position is prohibited, but if one is appointed, her rulings are binding. These scholars explain that belonging to the male gender is a required qualification of a judge, but they differ on the validity of a judgments ruled by a female judge. They ruled that if a woman was appointed to a judicial position, her ruling is binding, even though her appointment to the position is prohibited in the first place, as long as ruling is based on Shari'a laws and as long as the ruling is not in the realm of criminal law or penal law; in these areas, she is neither entitled to judge nor to testify.
[10]
dayan.org
tho i am with the shafi madhab and dont recognise this opinion as valid. i just said its what some hanafi scholars believe however i dont agree with it as they dont have concrete evidence